IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-584 of 2020
Applicant: Muhammad Ismail Kakepoto
Through Syed Ghous Ali Shah, Advocate.
Complainant: Sher Muhammad, through Mr. Sabir Ali Shaikh, Advocate.
The State: Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari,
Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 03-05-2021
Date of Decision: 03-05-2021
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI-J.:- Through this bail application, applicant Muhammad Ismail Kakepoto seeks his pre arrest bail in case F.I.R No.92 of 2020 registered at Police Station Waleed for an offence under Section 489-F, 506/2 PPC.
2. The allegation as per FIR is that applicant issued a Cheque on outstanding of business of Rs.2500,000/- (Twenty Five Rupees) which on presentation was dishonoured.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is unexplained delay of ten months for registration of FIR; that the FIR was registered with malafide intention which is clear from the fact that earlier nephew of the complainant Imran lodged an F.I.R No.53/2021 thereafter, another FIR bearing crime No.11/2021 was also registered by another nephew of the complainant namely Talib Hussain and subsequently present FIR has been registered. He further submits that in all the FIRs a different business has been shown and applicant was shown as partner which malafide is clear from the facts of all these FIRs. He submits that applicant is a Government servant and he will face the trial and there is no apprehension of tampering and absconsion, as such he prays for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits a series of FIRs of similar cases has been registered against the applicant and the
applicant is a habitual offender; that issuance of cheque has been admitted by the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for the confirmation of bail.
5. Learned D.P.G submitted that applicant was bound to repay the amount which was outstanding against him and all the ingredients of section 489-F are made out from the contents of FIR so also from the investigation conducted by Investigation Officer. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of MUHAMMAD KAMRAN BHATTI VS State (2018 Y L R 1554).
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The scope of pre arrest bail is only to save the innocent people, who are facing agony of law on the basis of malafide on the part of complainant and investigating agencies. It is astonishing that the applicant is partner in the different businesses with the same family and knowingly that the first cheque was dishonoured and F.I.R was registered, they continued business with the applicant showing different names of family members, this fact alone is sufficient to hold that this F.I.R was a malice. However; these all facts added to the applicability of section 489-F and the issuance of cheque in lieu of repayment of outstanding amount will be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. Further the offence for which the applicant alleged to have been involved carries punishment up-to three years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. It is settled proposition of law by now that while deciding bail application. The deeper appreciation of evidence is not admissible and bail application is to be decided on tentative assessment of material available on record.
8. From tentative assessment of the material, the applicant has made out good case for confirmation of bail. Resultantly, the bail application is allowed and ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant vide order 11.11.2020 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
s.ashfaq