ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-559 of 2021.

_____________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

14.03.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Munsif Jan, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Amjair Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant issued a cheque in favour of complainant Altaf Ali dishonestly; it was bounced when was presented before the concerned bank for encashment; and then insulted and threatened the complainant of murder when he approached him for return of his money, for that the present case was registered.

2.         The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned             3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.498 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 cheque was stolen for that N.C report was lodged with concerned police station at Karachi; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 22 days and the offence alleged against the applicant even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further enquiry and malafide.

4.         Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has committed the financial murder of the complainant. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Syed        Zahoor-ul-Hassan Shah Vs. The State (2021 PCr.LJ-886)

5.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 22 days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The cheque allegedly used in commission of the incident, as per the applicant was stolen and for that N.C report was lodged by the applicant with concerned police station at Karachi. The very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be disposed of under “B” class. The offence alleged against the applicant even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause. The applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail on his part. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide in favour of the applicant obviously is made out.

7.                     The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, there was no opinion of the police for cancellation of case under false “B” class.

8.         In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

9.         The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                              JUDGE