ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-451 of 2019.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Present

Mr. Justice Abdul MobeenLakho.

Applicant: Rashid Ali son of Ghulam Sarwarbycste Bhatti.

Through: Mr. DeewanDhanrajadvocate.

Respondent. The State.

Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing. 07-10-2019.

Date of decision. 07-10-2019.

O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.-Through the instant bail application, applicant/accused Rashid Ali Bhatti seekspre-arrest bail in Crime No. 234/2019, offence u/s 489-F P.P.C registered at police Station Moro, District Naushehro Feroze. Prior to this, pre-arrest bail application of the applicant/accused was declined by learned Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroze vide order dated 06-08-2019, hence the applicant/accused has impugned the said order by filing the instant bail application.

2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Ghulam Hussain Korai lodged the F.I.R. on 15-07-2019 alleging therein that he purchased plot from father of accused, who later-on expired. On 05-05-2019 complainant met with applicant/accused Rashid and demanded money of his plot, who issued a cheque bearing No.1627726082 amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- of MCB Bank Moro. Complainant presented the said cheque before the concerned Bank, but the same was dishonoured. Ultimately complainant lodged the above sadi F.I.R.

3. It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant. He further contended that there is inordinate delay of about 10 days in lodging the F.I.R. and such delay has not been explained by the complainant. He further contends that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC. He further contends that the case has been challaned and applicant/accused is regularly attending the trial Court.

4. Learned APG for the State has conceded the bail plea of applicant/accused on the ground that case has been challaned and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned APG for the State and have gone through the material available on the record with their assistance.

6. It is admitted position that there is inordinate delay days in lodging the F.I.R. and such delay has not been plausibly explained by the complainant, although the complainant has obtained the order for lodging of the F.I.R. on 08-07-2019 and police station was at the distance of about one kilometer, inspite of that complainant has lodged the F.I.R. on 15-07-2019 with the delay of about seven days, which shows malafide on his part. The case has been challaned and applicant/accused is regularly attending the trial Court and he is no more required for further investigation. Moreover, offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC. In case of ZafarIqbalVs. Muhammad Anwar and others reported in 2009 SCMR 1488 it has been held that where offence falls within non-prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in exceptional cases. As far as exceptional circumstances are concerned those are to be taken into consideration depending upon each case.

7. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out the case for grant ofbail, therefore, interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

Judge

Nasim/P.A