IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-38 of 2022

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of Bail Application.

O R D E R.

07-03-2022.

Mr. Safdar Ali Jogi, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, APG for the State.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant/accused Nazir Ahmed Siyal seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 11/2021, offence u/s 489-F PPC registered at Police Station Shaheed Murtaza Mirani, District Khairpur. Prior to this, the applicant filed such application, but the same was turned down by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur vide order dated 18-01-2022, hence this bail application.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submit that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives; that there is inordinate delay of about 05 years in lodging the FIR and such long delay has not been explained by the complainant; that complainant has sold out the plot to one Pardeep Kumar, who has paid entire amount of the plot to the applicant, but the applicant/accused has issued a cheque to complainant as a security, hence complainant has misused the said cheque; that the applicant/accused has joined the investigation and he has not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail, therefore, he pray for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand learned APG for the State has vehemently opposed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned APG for the State and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, there is inordinate delay of about 05 years in lodging the FIR and such long delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. According to learned counsel for the applicant/accused, the complainant has sold out the plot to one Pardeep Kumar, who has paid entire amount of the plot to the complainant, the applicant/accused has issued a cheque to complainant as a security, but complainant has misused the said cheque, otherwise applicant/accused has no concerned with the plot or any transaction. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant/accused has filed an application u/s 249-A Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court for his pre-mature acquittal, but the complainant is not attending the trial Court, as such learned trial Court was directed to take all coercive action to procure the attendance of the complainant and his witnesses to proceed with the case and no adjournment shall be granted to either party on flimsy grounds. Today, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has filed certified true copy of case diary of the trial Court, which reflects that complainant and PWs were called absent and NBWs issued against them were returned un-served, which shows that complainant is not interested to pursue his case. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has also pleaded malafide on the part of complainant to falsely involve him in this case. The case has been challaned and applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case for confirmation of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the instant bail application is allowed and interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is confirmed on same terms and condition.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

J U D G E

Nasim/P.A