ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.101 of 2026

DATE

ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs

 

For hearing of bail application

-----------------------------------------------------

19.02.2026

            Mr. Sahibzada, advocate for applicant

            Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. & Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP

            IO/SIP Nadeem Babar of PS Clifton, Karachi

            -------------------------------------------

 

            Applicant/accused Haq Nawaz son of Sultan Mehmood seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.48/2017, registered at P.S. Clifton, Karachi for offence under section 489-F, PPC, after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI South, Karachi vide order dated 07.01.2026.

            It is alleged in FIR that present applicant, who works as a contractor, had to pay Rs.500,000/- to complainant on account of supply of food on different occasions, which he failed to and had handed over two cheques Nos.10342825 and 10342824, of Rs.100,000/- and Rs.132,000/- respectively, which upon presentation were dishonoured, hence the subject FIR.

 

            Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is delay of three months in lodgment of FIR without plausible explanation; that alleged cheques were dishonoured on 29.11.2016 and FIR of the incident was lodged on 27.02.2017 with a delay of three months; that there is business transaction between the parties and ingredients of Section 489-F, PPC are not attracted in the present case; that applicant has settled the disputed amount with the brother of the complainant and had paid all due amount; that he has also paid mark up on principal amount; that alleged offence does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and the case of the applicant/accused requires further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC, hence prayed for grant of bail.

 

            Complainant is present and relied upon learned A.P.G. However, he admits that there was settlement between applicant and brother of complainant

 

            Learned A.P.G. opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant remained fugitive of law, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

 

            Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G., complainant and perused the material available on record.

 

            Admittedly, the incident as is evident from FIR is taken place on 29.11.2016 whereas report thereof was lodged on 27.02.2017, after a delay of three months and, that too, without furnishing any plausible explanation. Hon’ble apex Court in number of cases held delay in lodgment of FIR to be fatal for prosecution case. The applicant has taken plea that in fact there was business between him and brother of the complainant and after his arrest the issue was settled between the parties and he was released from the police custody but the IO had mala fidely submitted challan against the applicant by showing him as absconder. In the case of Mitho Pitafi versus the State (2009 SCMR 299) the apex Court has held that mere abscondence shall not come in the way of grant of bail if the accused has a good case on merits. Furthermore, offences with which the applicant stands charged fall within non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. Prima facie, mere issuance of cheque which is subsequently dishonoured does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F, PPC, unless it is proved that the same was issued with dishonest intention for payment of loan or discharging of any obligation; all ingredients are required to be proved at trial. Reliance in this behalf may well be made to the case of Nazir AHmed alias Bhaga v. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1467). All these circumstances, prima-facie, establish that the case against applicant falls within the purview of Section 497(2) Cr.PC, entitling him to grant of bail on merits. Therefore, interim pre-arrest granted to applicant/accused above named by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

 

            Needless to say, that the above observations are tentative in nature, and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

 

             Instant criminal bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                                                                      J U D G E

Gulsher/PS