ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT
KARACHI
Cr.B.A.No. 131 of 2023
(Kashif Khan vs. The State)
Date Order
with signature of Judges
For hearing of bail application
08.06.2023
Mr. Ashraf Ali Shah advocate for the applicant
Mr. Talib Ali Memon Asstt.PG for the State
Ms. Sumaira Anwar
advocate for the complainant
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
It is alleged that the
applicant made purchase of certain articles from the complainant party made
payment thereof by way of issuing cheque, it was bounced when was presented
before the concerned Bank for encashment, for that the present case was
registered. On refusal of pre-arrest bail by learned III-Additional Sessions
Judge, Karachi East, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by
way of instant bail application u/s 498-A 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 party in order to satisfy with him his
dispute over settlement of account; the FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about 06 months; co-accused Touseef
Ahmed has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court; offence alleged
against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause and it carries
punishment of imprisonment for three years or fine or both if the applicant on
trial is punished with fine then the imprisonment which he is likely to undergo
on account of his arrest would be somewhat extra, therefore, the applicant is
entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and
malafide.
Learned
Asstt. 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 financial death of the complainant
party in a very deceitful manner.
Heard arguments and
perused the record.
The FIR of the incident
has been lodged with delay of about06 months; such delay having not been
explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicant
is not falling within the prohibitory clause. Co-accused Touseef
Ahmed who actually has issued the subject cheque has already been admitted to
bail by learned trial Court. The case has finally been challaned and there is
no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on part of
the applicant. In these circumstances, a case of grant of pre-arrest bail to
the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide obviously is made out.
In view of above, the
interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same
terms and conditions.
Instant bail application is disposed
of accordingly.
JUDGE