THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail No.S-360 of 2024

Applicant:              Saleem Khan son of Ghulam Muhammad Kalhoro, through Mr. Ashique Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate.

Complainant:         Ali Murad son of Muhammad Aslam Pirzado through Mr. SamadullahMangi, Advocate.

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

Date of Hearing:    29.08.2024

Date of Order:       29.08.2024

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J :- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, Applicant Saleem Khan seeks Bail Before Arrest in the case emanating from F.I.R No.26/2024, registered at Police Station Allahabad, District Larkanaunder Sections 506/2, 420, 409, 34 P.P.C. after his bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Larkana vide Order dated 06.04.2024.

2.                The facts in a nutshell as per F.I.R. are that on 25.09.2023, the complainant gave an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to the Applicant/accused for obtaining a visa of Saudi Arabia for his brother Akhtar alias Akhtar Ali under the agreement, his brother proceeded to Saudi Arabia, but instead of reasonable work, which was promised, labour work was given to him for about five months; hence he sent him Rs.15000/-. On 16.02.2024 at 04:00 p.m.,the complainant and his witnesses went to the Applicant/accused and demanded his due amount as he failed to fulfil the requirements of the agreement, but the Accused issued threats of dire consequences with the force of a pistol. Hence, this F.I.R.

3.                 Learned counsel for the Applicant/accusedhas contended that the Applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is a delay of 18 days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant; that all the witnesses are interested; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the Applicant/accused vide order dated 26.06.2024 may be confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

4.                 Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the Applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of committing cheating with the brother of the complainant, and he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned Additional Prosecutor Generalalso vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Applicant/accused.

5.                 I heard learned counsel for the Applicant/accused, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Prosecutor General, and perused the material available on record. 

6.                Admittedly, the F.I.R. is delayed for about 18 days, regarding which the complainant has furnished no plausible explanation. Further, Section 420 P.P.C is bailable, whereas Section 506/2 P.P.C does not fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.  As far as Section 409 P.P.C is concerned, no doubt it carries a punishment upto 10 years, but during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has not collected any documentary evidence to show that the Applicant/accused is either a public servant or banker or merchant or agent; even otherwise this question can be thrashed out by the trial Court after recording evidence. In evaluating an application for bail, the Court must assess the gravity and seriousness of the accusations against the accused, which is prima facia missing in the present case.

7.                The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Petition Nos. 197-K to 204-K, 211-K to 221-K, and 230-K of 2019 have observed that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy. Such judicial protection is provided primarily to safeguard individuals from potential abuse of legal processes and to preserve their dignity and honour. However, it does not apply to all routine criminal cases, especially when the accused faces prima facie charges supported by material evidence that justifies custodial interrogation.In the instant case, the Applicant/accused has joined the investigation as well as trial; therefore, no more is required for further investigation. Hence, he has made the case forpre-arrest bail.

8.                 Accordingly, instant Criminal Bail Application is allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the Applicant/accused vide order dated 26.06.2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

9.                Needless to mention, 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.

                           Judge

Manzoor