IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-49 of 2025
|
Applicant |
: |
Nadir Ali Brohi, |
|
|
|
(In person) |
|
|
|
|
|
Complainant |
|
Abdul Jabbar Tunio |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Muhammad Saleem Mangi, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
The State |
: |
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
|
05-05-2025 |
|
Date of order |
|
05-05-2025 |
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Nadir Ali Brohi seeks interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No.204/2024, for the offence U/s 489-F, 506/2, 420, 34 P.P.C, registered at Police Station A-Section Shahdadkot. Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, vide order dated 24.01.2025, hence he has filed instant criminal bail application.
2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Applicant is present on bail, whereas his counsel is called absent. Same was the position on the last date of hearing. Instant bail application was presented on 03.02.2025 since then no progress is made. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that this bail application is pending for long no progress is made but the accused is seeking adjournment on one or the other pretext, as such he requests that the matter be proceeded. Learned D.P.G. has read over the F.I.R, however, the applicant Nadir Ali Brohi is present and states that infact his cheque was stolen and he has no knowledge about his business as such he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. have vehemently opposed for grant of bail.
5. Heard and perused.
6. From perusal of record, it reflects that the complainant made a deal of 2000 maunds of katti/hask at the Brohi Rice Mill Mirokhan, where the complainant paid advance amount of Rupees twenty lacs. At that time, 75 maunds of katti/hask was handed over to the complainant and for the remaining, they have undertaken that they will pay the same, however, remaining hask/katti was not given to the complainant and they given cheques No. 165260673, dated 25.01.2023, Rs.900,000/-, dated 20.01.2024, Rs.500,000/-, dated 15.02.2024, present accused issued cheque of Rs.900,000/-, dated 20.04.2024 from his account.
7. On the presentation of the cheque, the said cheque became dishonoured on the ground of insufficient amount in the account. The applicant has not denied from issuance of cheque and from his signature, hence ingredients of Section 489-F P.P.C are very much applicable in this case. Further the applicant knowingly that insufficient amount is lying in his account even then he has issued a cheque, which means that he has committed cheating and fraud with the complainant.
8. At this stage only tentative assessment is to be made. Further for grant of pre-arrest bail the essential requirements are malafide and ulterior motives those are missing in this case. In this respect, I am fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 SCMR 1129], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
"Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation... the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of malafide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."
9. Sufficient material is available on the record to connect the applicant with the commission of offence. In view of above, the learned counsel for applicant/accused has failed to make out case for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, instant bail application is dismissed. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 03.02.2025 is hereby recalled.
10. 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