ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. B. A. No. 1023 of 2022

(Mst. Nazma Khan vs. The State)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hearing of bail application

------------------------------

19.07.2022

Mr. Umar Farooq advocate for the applicant

Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhawar, D.P.G for the State

Syed Nadeem-ul-Haq advocate for the complainant

-------------------------------------------

Irshad Ali Shah J.—It is alleged that the complainant extended loan worth Rs.12,50,000/- to the applicant and co-accused Adnan Khan, to be invested by them in business with a condition that they would pay him Rs.50,000/- per week as profit, which they failed to pay, consequently they returned his amount in shape of cheques those were bounced by the concerned Bank when were presented there for encashment for that the present case was registered.

The applicant on having been refused bail by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498 Cr.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant who has already taken back his money. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.

Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have sought for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that applicant has committed financial death of the complainant. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Rana Abdul Khaliq vs. The State (2019 SCMR 1129).

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about09 months, such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overruled; the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause; there appears to be dispute between the parties over settlement of Accounts. The applicant is a lady accused. The case has finally been challaned. The applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on her part. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide obviously is made out.

The case law relied upon by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case there was no delay of 09 months in lodgment of FIR and accused involved was male.

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

The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E