ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 566 of 2020.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
07.12.2020.
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Imtiaz Ali Panhwar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.
~~~~~~~
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. Through this application, Applicant Mumtaz Ali son of Muhammad Hashim Khokhar has sought for grant of pre-arrest bail in F.I.R No.222/2020 registered with P.S Mehar for offences punishable under Sections 489-F, 506 (2), 504 P.P.C. His similar prayer was declined by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, vide Order dated 29.10.2020. The applicant was admitted to interim pre arrest bail by this Court on 04.11.2020.
The facts of prosecution case are mentioned in the F.I.R, copy whereof is attached with this bail application, therefore, the same are not reproduced herein the order.
Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that there is delay of two months in registration of the F.I.R; that the cheque in question was mis-placed, for which the applicant had recorded N.C report with P.S Shah Panjo Sultan; that the cheque has been misused by the complainant only to extort money from the applicant. The counsel for the applicant was repeatedly asked to show any malafide as to why complainant has booked applicant in the case, he did not reply satisfactorily but only stated that the complainant wants to extort money from the applicant.
On the other hand learned Addl. P.G. opposed confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to applicant on the grounds that ingredients of Section 489-F P.P.C are fully attracted and satisfied in the instant case and that there is documentary evidence in shape of cheque and memo issued by the bank authorities. He further contended that, no any suit for cancellation of cheque in question has been filed by the applicant, nor any malafide on the part of complainant / prosecution has been shown and on the contrary the complainant has clearly stated that applicant-accused had obtained pesticides from him and for repayment of such amount he issued cheque in question, which has been dishonored.
Record reveals that the delay in registration of the F.I.R has been fully explained by the complainant by stating that at first instance he approached concerned police-station for registration of the F.I.R, where he was refused and ultimately he approached Ex-Officio/Justice of Peace by filing application under Section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C and obtained orders for registration of his F.I.R. In this scenario, delay in registration of F.I.R appears to have been explained satisfactorily by the complainant. It is well settled law that, grant of bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives and it cannot be granted unless the person seeking it satisfies the conditions specified through subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C i.e. unless he established the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that accused has to show malafides on the part of complainant/ prosecution. But, in this case, none of the above condition appears to be satisfied. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon case of Mukhtiar Ahmed v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2064) and Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
Since, the applicant-accused has failed to show a single malafide on the part of complainant/ prosecution to falsely implicate him in the case and there appear no reasonable ground to believe that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him. These facts dis-entitle the applicant to grant of extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application stands dismissed. Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant vide Order dated 04.11.2020 is hereby re-called.
Judge
Ansari