ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

1^st. Cr. Bail Application No. S- 605 of 2023

Applicant:                                            Kalash Kumar, Kindu through Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, Advocate.  

The State:                                            Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Complainant:                                      Suljhani Bai, Hindu through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.  

Date of hearing:                                  08.12.2023

Date of order:                                     08.12.2023

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar-J. Through this bail application, the applicants has prayed for his admission on post arrest bail in crime No.49/2023, registered at Police Station City, Jacobabad, for offence under sections 489-F PPC. Prior to this, applicant filed bail application before Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-I, Jacobabad which was dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2023 thereafter bail application No.775/2023, was filed by the applicant before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, where after hearing the parties same was dismissed vide order 27.09.2023, hence; this bail application has been maintained.  

2.         The facts of the case are mentioned in FIR, copy whereof has been attached with the memo of bail application, hence need not to be reproduced here again.

3.         Learned counsels for the applicant submits that Cheque bearing No.10043132 amounting to Rs.10600000/- was not issued by present applicant though the issuer of said cheque had same name but per statement dated 15.3.2023 issued by the Manager of concerned Bank the account No.1129-0081-000262-01-7 had been maintained by Mr. Kailash son of Kanya Lal having CNIC NO.43102-3580575-1 and said account had become dormant as on 27.8.2014 presently with ‘O’ balance. In support of his contention learned counsel has annexed copies of impugned cheque as well sell letter under the cover of his statement dated 28.10.2023. He further submits that the present applicant is son of Rajkumar and not of Kanyal Lal bearing his CNIC No.43102-6618952-3. He further submits that due to such documentary evidence instant case was investigated twice by the DSP concerned and said case was disposed of under “C” class. However, learned Magistrate did not concur his opinion with police report therefore, by taking cognizance has instituted the case against applicant. He therefore, submits that in view of above conflict in title of account case against the applicant requires further inquiry and pray for bail. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the cases of Abdul Saboor v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (2022 SCMR 592) Muhammad Nasir Shafique v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 2092) Zafar Nawaz v. The State and another (2023 SCMR 1977) and Abdul Ghafoor Gondal v. The State through P.G. Pnnjab and another (2020 SCMR 861).    

4.         Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh in view of above does not oppose the bail application.

5.         Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that huge amount of Rs.10600000/- has been usurped by the applicant besides the applicant has filed Cr.Misc.A.No.S-279 of 2023 before this court against order passed by learned Magistrate. Therefore, he is not entitled for the bail.

6.         Heard arguments. Perused record.

7.         Admittedly there are two version of the prosecution case and which one is correct, is the question which is yet to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant himself has assailed order passed by learned Magistrate whereby he took cognizance of the offence hence instant bail application may be adjourned to some other date is concerned carries no weight. In my view the applicant himself has been pressing instant bail application meaning thereby that he has no grievance or grudge against the order passed by learned Magistrate and  thus in view of maintaining instant bail application, said application has become infructuous. Accordingly and in view of above discussion the case against applicant requires further inquiry within the meaning of subsection 2 of section 497 Cr.PC. Consequently, instant bail application is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

8.            Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial. The trial court shall not be influenced of said observation.

                                                                                                J U D G E

S-Ashfaq/-