ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-412 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

01.10.2020.

Mr. Altaf Hussain Surhio, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Abdullah Kehar, Advocate for complainant (absent)

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant issued a cheque worth Rs.21,65,000/-, in favour of complainant Saddam Hussain, it was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment, for that the present case  was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 12 days; there is dispute between the parties over the settlement of account; the offence alleged against the applicant even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry.

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant.

5.        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 12 days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The parties admittedly are disputed over settlement of account relating to sale and purchase of the motorcycle and its spare parts. The investigation of the case is over and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. In that situation, the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further inquiry.

7.        In Criminal Petition No.594/2020 (Jahanzeb Khan Vs. The State),    the Honourable Apex Court vide order dated 09.07.2020, in similar circumstances has admitted the accused to bail by making     observing that;

“Adverting to the petitioner’s case, though there is a reference to issuance of bank cheques and their failure on the bank counter, nonetheless, details of financial obligation in satisfaction whereof the instruments were purportedly issued is conspicuously missing in the crime report. Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence complained is punishable with three years imprisonment for fine or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar. Petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy or punishment.”

8.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                              J U D G E