ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-777 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

Applicant:                                  Sabir Ali, through

                                                  Mr. Muhammad Qayyum Arain,

                                                  Advocate

 

Complainant:                             Nemo

 

State:                                         Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar

                                                  Deputy Prosecutor General

 

Date of hearing:                         07.02.2022

 

Dated of order:                           07.07.2022

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:             Applicant/accused Sabir Ali Arain, seeks his pre-arrest bail in FIR No.74/2021, registered at Police Station Mehrabpur, u/s 489-F, PPC. His earlier pre-arrest bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Naushahro Feroze, vide order dated 04.08.2021.

2.              The allegation against the applicant is that on 20.12.2020 he purchased different items from the complainant Muhammad Azam and issued him a cheque amounting to Rs.200,000/- which on presentation before the concerned bank was dishonoured, hence such FIR was registered.

3.              Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention; that there is delay of about four months in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant; that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4.           Learned Deputy 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 there is delay of about four months in lodging of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant.  Further the offence 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) and Sheikh Abdul Raheem v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 822). The Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated: 05-08-2021 in the Case of Muhammad Imran v. The State (Crl.P.860-L/2021) has categorically settled the grounds for the case to fall within the exceptions 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. Apparently there appears no ground to bring the case of applicant in the exceptions for refusal of the bail as settled by the Supreme Court. Further the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733)  has held that “Once this court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr.P.C shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then the courts of the country  shall  follow this principle in its’ letter and spirit because principles of law  enunciated by this court are constitutionally binding on all courts throughout  the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts.”  Further the said principle has been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Shakoor v. the State and another vide order dated 25.01.2022 ( Cr.P.No.1384 of 2021).

7.              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 03.12.2021, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

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

 

 

                                                                             JUDGE

 

Suleman Khan/PA