ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-354 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

25.10.2021

                        Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Azhar Hussain Abbasi, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant dishonestly issued three cheques in favour of complainant Qazi Ayaz Ahmed in order to satisfy payment on account of purchase of landed property from him, those were bounced by the concerned banks, when were presented there for encashment, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498-A Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant on account of dispute over the landed property; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one year; the complainant is not an exclusive owner of the land under sale to claim the entire sale amount; the civil suit between the parties is pending adjudication before the Civil Court having jurisdiction and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending his unjustified arrest at the hands of police. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon case of Syed Hassan Ali Shah Vs. The State and another (2019 PCr.LJ Note-159).

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the complainant is attorney of co-owners of the land under sale; the civil suit has been disposed of by the Court having jurisdiction and the applicant has deprived the complainant of his sale money dishonestly without lawful justification. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Rana Abdul Khaliq Vs. The State and others (2019 SCMR-1129).

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one year and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. There is dispute between the parties over the sale and purchase of the landed property. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. The case has been challaned finally. The applicant has joined the trial. The concession of pre-arrest bail has not been misused by the applicant. In these circumstances, it would be unjustified to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, there was no such delay in lodgment of the FIR and the cheque was issued by accused to make repayment of the loan. In the instant case, FIR is lodged with one year delay and the cheques were issued to satisfy the payment over sale/purchase of landed property, which it is said was not owned by the complainant exclusively.

                        In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

  J U D G E