IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 499 of 2023.

Applicant:                 Nazar Muhammad Brohi, through Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate.

Complainant:            Abdul Sattar through Mr. Abdul Rehman Mughal, Advocate.

Respondent:              The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:        27.11.2023.

Date of Order:           27.11.2023.

Date of reasons:       05.12.2023.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J- Applicant Nazar Muhammad son of Haji Abdul Aziz Brohi is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 73 of 2023 registered at P.S City Jacobabad, under Section 489-F PPC.

            The case of prosecution, as depicted from para 1 of the impugned order, reads as under:

            “Complainant Abdul Sattar Bangulani registered F.I.R No.73 of 2023 on 12.8.2023 at P.S City Jacobabad. The allegations against the applicant stat that he had obtained friendly loan of rupees two crores for business of cloths from the complainant on 20.4.2023 and agreed to give him profit. The applicant had also issued a cheque No.21248283 amounting to Rs.200,00,000/- of UBL Limited Jacobabad in favor of the complainant, which was dishonored by concerned bank by issuing such memo of “Insufficient Funds in Drawer’s Account”,  leading to booking of the present applicant in this case.”

            Learned counsel for applicant mainly contended that the F.I.R is delayed for more than one month; that cheque in question of the applicant was misplaced as such he submitted an application to bank authorities on 13.6.2023 for stopping the payment. He further added that, there has been an agreement executed by applicant before nekmards in a private “fasila”, which shows that the applicant had issued the cheque. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions learned counsel placed his reliance upon case of Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708), Shiakh Noor Muhammad v. The State (2019 MLD 1692), Nazir Ahmed alias Bhaga v. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1467) and Bashir Ahmed v. The State and another (2023 SCMR 748).

            Learned D.P.G. assisted by learned Advocate for complainant vehemently opposed grant of bail to the applicant on the grounds that the applicant has himself made the case as of two versions, as on one hand he admits that the cheque was stolen away/ misplaced but in private “fasila” he admitted to have issued the cheque to the complainant; that no any report was made to the Police station regarding stealing of the cheque and that the amount involved in the cheque is huge one. Learned Advocate for complainant placed reliance upon cases of Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2021 YLR 367), Syed Hasnain Haider v. The State and another (23021 SCMR 1466), Nazim Hussain v. The State (2019 P.Cr.L.J 1759) and Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 147).

            Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on the record.

            It appears from the record that, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant that he issued cheque in favour of the complainant against his liabilities, which on presentation in the bank concerned was dishonoured. The complainant has no motive to falsely implicate the applicant. Plea raised by applicant/ accused is that his signed cheque was stolen/ misplaced; in this context suffice it is to say that it is against natural conduct that a person would keep blank signed cheque in his cheque book. No doubt the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause but the prima-facie evidence connecting the applicant cannot be ignored and the fact that if an offence does not fall within prohibitory clause would not make it a bailable offence and in such like cases bail as a right cannot be granted to the accused. Furthermore, this is an application for pre-arrest bail which, inter-alia would be considered if there is some malafide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant. No such material is available on record to infer that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

            In view of the above, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, this application was dismissed by recalling interim pre arrest bail already granted to applicant vide short order dated 27.11.2023 and these are the reasons for the short order.

            The observations hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial.

                                                       Judge

Ansari