ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S- 549 of 2020.

For hearing of bail application

26-04-2021.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Dayo, advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Hamayoon Shaikh, advocate for the complainant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shar Rizvi, DPG for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the applicant dishonselty issued a cheque in favour of complainant Relo Mall, it was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment, on being approach for return of his money, the complainant was threatened of murder by the applicant, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under Section 498-A Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicants being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over settlement of account, the cheque was issued as security and it has been misused by the complainant and the very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class, therefore the applicant is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending his unjustified arrest.

4. Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre arrest bail to applicant while learned counsel for the complainant has recorded objection to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants by contending that he has deprived the complainant of his hard earned money. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Ghulam Murtaza Vs. The State (2013 YLR 566).

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

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with the delay of more than one month; such delay could not be lost sight of. The parties are said to be disputed over settlement of account. The offence is not falling with prohibitory clause of section 497(II) Cr.P.C; the very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class. The applicant has joined the trial and he has not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to grant of pre arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstance. In that case, the FIR was not recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class.

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

9. Instant Crl. Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/Steno.