ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Criminal Bail Application No.231 of 2023

(Ansar Farooq vs. The State)

Date                           Order with signature of Judges

 

For hearing of bail application

14.06.2023

            Mr. Nasir Ahmed, advocate a/w applicant

            Ms. Rubina Qadir, D.P.G.

            Complainant Muhammad Saeed in person

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

 

It is alleged that the applicant purchased the truck from the complainant and made payment whereof by issuing a cheque dishonestly, 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 XI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, 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 being and old and infirm person has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy with him his dispute over settlement of account; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 17 months; the 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 only then the imprisonment which he is likely to undergo on his arrest on refusal of pre-arrest bail would be somewhat extra, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Bashir Ahmed versus The State and another (2023 SCMR 748).

Learned D.P.G. for the State and complainant in person have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has committed financial death of the complainant.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about seventeen 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. The case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on the part of applicant. In these circumstances, a case of grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide 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.  

 

 

 

             J U D G E