ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-359 of 2020

 

Date of hearing

 

Order with signature of Judge

 

                                    For hearing of bail application.

07.09.2020

 

                                Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                                                ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant obtained rupees twenty five Lacs from complainant Habib Hyder to get purchase house for him, which he failed to purchase, therefore, he returned rupees fifteen Lacs to the complainant in shape of cheque of rupees fifteen Lacs, which was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment, on being approached for return of his money, the complainant allegedly was threatened of his murder by the applicant and others, for that the present case  was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the complainant were running a “Estate Agency” jointly and there arose dispute between them over settlement of the accounts; the complainant now has involved the applicant in a false case by misusing his cheque; the offence even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and the applicant is in custody since six months. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State (PLD 1995 SCMR-34).

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is habitual offender. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Shameel Ahmed Vs. The State (2009 SCMR-174).

5.        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.        The cheque was issued allegedly by the applicant on 20.10.2019; it was presented before the concerned Bank on 30.01.2020, while the FIR of the incident has been lodged by the complainant on 27.02.2020. The intervening delay could not be lost sight of. The payment of huge amount to the applicant being Estate Agent even before purchase or knowing the description of the house under purchase is appearing to be surprising. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. The investigation of the case is over and the applicant is said to be in custody since six months. In these circumstances, the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further inquiry.

7.        In Criminal Petition No.594/2020 (Jahanzeb Khan Vs. The State),    the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 09.07.2020, has admitted the accused to bail in utmost similar circumstances, while observing that;

“Adverting to the petitioner’s case, though there is a reference to issuance of bank cheques and their failure on the bank counter, nonetheless, details of financial obligation in satisfaction whereof the instruments were purportedly issued is conspicuously missing in the crime report. Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence complained is punishable with three years imprisonment for fine or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar. Petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy or punishment.”

8.        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the main reason for refusal of bail to the accused was his conduct as he remained at large for about one year after registration of FIR against him. In the instant matter, there is no absconsion on the part of applicant. 

9.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

10.      The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

 

                                                                                                             J U D G E