ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S- 604 of 2020.
Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge
1.For orders on office objection as flag A.
2.For hearing of bail application.
08.02.2021.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate a/w the applicant.
Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Kolachi, advocate for the complainant..
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G.
ORDER
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI-J.:- Through this bail application, applicant Muneer Ahmed Lashari seeks pre arrest bail in case FIR No.67 of 2020 registered at Police Station Allahabad for an offence under Section 489-F, 506/2, 34 PPC.
2. As per FIR complainant states that he had sold out share of his house to his cousin accused Muneer Ahmed in the sum of Rs.900,000/= out of which he received Rs.200,000/= and for remaining amount of Rs.700,000/= applicant/accused Muneer Ahmed issued a cheque which on presentation was dis-honoured for which such memo was also issued by the bank concerned. It is further alleged that on demand by the complainant, applicant kept him on false hopes and ultimately he refused and issued threats of dire consequences to the complainant. Then complainant lodged the FIR to the above effect.
3. After registration of FIR the investigation followed and during the course the applicant appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana where initially he was granted ad interim pre arrest bail but later on its confirmation was declined vide order dated 17.11.2020, giving rise to filing of instant pre arrest bail application. Applicant has been granted interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire amount has been paid to the complainant by the applicant but they being cousin interse the cheque has not been returned to the applicant/accused by the complainant. He further submits that during investigation the defence taken by the applicant is admitted by the investigating officer who submitted report under ‘C’ class before learned Magistrate however, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. He further submits that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and malafides are clear from the fact that no document in respect of the house has been placed on record by the complainant. On all these scores, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for confirmation of bail.
4. Learned D.P.G duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role; applicant handed over cheque to the complainant which has not been denied by him; no malafides has been pointed out on his behalf; no amount was received by the complainant from the applicant and since the cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate, the plea of ‘C’ class is no more available to the applicant. While arguing, they prayed for dismissal of bail plea of the applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has not placed on record any proof regarding house/property or even any sale transaction between them for which he received the cheque from the applicant. From perusal of FIR it appears that date and time of such incident has not been mentioned nor the date, on which allegedly complainant received part payment of Rs.200,000/=, is mentioned therein. It is settled proposition of law by now that while deciding bail application, the deeper appreciation of evidence is not admissible and bail application is to be decided on tentative assessment of material available on record.
6. From tentative assessment of the material, the applicant has made out good case for confirmation of bail. Resultantly, the bail application is allowed and ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant on 23.11.2020 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE