THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-150 of 2022

Applicant:            Raza Muhammad Dangar present in person.

Complainant:      Ameet Kumar through Mr. Imtiaz Ali M. Solangi, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  20.10.2022

Date of Order:     20.10.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Raza Muhammad son of Khair Muhammad Dangar seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 16/2022, offence under Sections 489-F, 506, 504, P.P.C of the Police Radhan Station. Prior to this, he has filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Ist-Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar vide order dated 17.03.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application  and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.                Per applicant/accused he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives as such he argued and submitted that he has obtained amount of Rs.20,00,000/-from the complainant on interest basis and he has paid Rs.63,00,000/- to the complainant, but the complainant is still demanding more amount in lieu of interest and in lieu of that amount he was given blank cheque, subsequently he used the same and filled the amount and thereafter the complainant lodged the instant F.I.R.  He has also pleaded that his house has also been mortgaged and is in the control of the complainant. He further submits that he is regularly attending the Court and is no more required for further investigation.  Lastly, he prayed for grant of bail.

4.                On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.G have vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submit that the after presentation of the said cheque the same has become dis-honoured and the applicant/accused has committed the offence and he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5.                Heard and perused. Admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged in the month of March, 2022 since then this case is pending without any progress.  The applicant/accused is attending the Court and he is no more required for further investigation.  The claim of the applicant/accused is that he has taken up an amount from the complainant and subsequently his house is also mortgaged by the complainant.  Further he deposed that he has also paid Rs.63,00,000/- to the complainant, but the complainant is demanding more amount.  All aspects of the case as argued by the applicant/accused are to be determined when the case will be proceeded before the learned Trial Court.  The offence with which the applicant/accused is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail is rule and not exception.  The applicant/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant and there is no cogent reason to refuse the bail to the applicant/accused as during pendency of the bail the applicant/accused has not misused the concession of bail.  

6.                Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused is confirmed on the same terms and condition.

7.                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.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor