ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-507 of 2021

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: Muhammad Siddique, through

Mr. Shahzado Dreho, Advocate

Complainant: Nemo

State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar

DPG

Date of hearing: 18.10.2021

Dated of order: 18.10.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Applicant/accused Muhammad Siddique son of Amir Bux @ Muhammad Udhal, by caste Kandhir, seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.166/2020, registered at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, u/s 489-F, PPC. His earlier pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo vide order dated 02.08.2021.

2. The allegation against the applicant is that he had purchased a residential house from the complainant and issued him a cheque of Rs.20,00,000/- which on presentation in the concerned bank was dishonoured, hence such FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail, however he could not arranged and furnished the surety, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail order was recalled by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur Mathelo. He also contended that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the applicant is aged about 52 years and infirm person, therefore, he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General conceded for confirmation of pre-arrest in view of the facts that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

6. Record reflects that interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur Mathelo in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- but applicant has failed to furnish surety. Record further reflects that applicant moved an application for reduction of surety amount but the same was also declined, therefore he was unable to furnish required surety. It is settled by now that if otherwise an accused is entitled for grant of bail, on non-furnishing surety which is of heavy amount, bail cannot be rejected but the surety amount to be reduced as per the gravity of offence. Further the offence for which applicant is allegedly involved does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail in these cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, however, strong reasons for refusal are required. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) , Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733) and Sheikh Abdul Raheem v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 822).

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Imran (Crl.P.860-L/2021) vide order dated: 05-08-2021 has formulated the grounds for the case to fall within the exception meriting denial of bail as (a). the likelihood of the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. Further Honourable Supreme Court held in the said order that the prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exception on the basis of the material available on the record. In the case in hand the prosecution has failed to establish any of the above ground meriting denial of the application of the applicant. It is also settled by the Honourable Apex Court that deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible while deciding the bail application and the same is to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on the record.

8. In view of the above facts coupled with the no objection given by learned DPG for the state, I am of the view that the applicant has made out the case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant / accused by this court vide order dated 16.08.2021, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

9. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

10. Instant Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA