ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-448 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

07.03.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Farooq Rajpar, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Atta Hussain Qadri, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant has issued a cheque dishonestly in favour of complainant Muhammad Sajjan, on account of purchase of Car from him, which was bounced by the concerned when it was presented there for encashment and then threatened the complainant to be killed, when he approached him for return of his money, for that  the present case was registered. 

                        The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned           1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, 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; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 18 months; the applicant at the time of incident was in abroad 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 on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Abdul Ghafoor Gondal VS. The State (2020 SCMR-861).

                        Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has deprived the complainant of his money.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 18 months and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The dispute between the parties, as is advanced by the complainant is over sale and purchase of the Car. The applicant at the time of incident was said to be in abroad. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The case has finally been challaned. The applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail on his part. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide is made out.

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

                        The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E