IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-789 of 2021.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicants: Zaighamuddin son of Qamaruddin Vistro through: Mr. Mr. Mehboob Ali Sahito, Advocate.

Complainant: Mr. Irfan Mehdi Soomro, Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor.

Date of hearing. 17.01.2022.

Date of decision. 17.01.2022.

O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD Ali SAHITO, J.- Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant/accused named above seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 232/2021, offence u/s 420, 406 PPC registered at police Station Naushehro Feroze. Prior to this applicant/accused filed pre arrest bail application, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III Naushehro Feroze vide order dated 02.12.2021, hence he filed the instant Bail Application.

2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contends that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is inordinate delay of about 16 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. He further contended that the applicant being go-down Incharge of Sore has been implicated in this case, therefore case of the applicant/accused requires further inquiry and he prays for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Irfan Mehdi Soomro Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, taken on record and submits that the applicant/accused is very much involved in the misappropriation of the medicines. Learned Additional P.G supported the version of complainant and has vehemently opposed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. From the perusal of record, it reflects that present applicant/accused was go-down incharge of Premier Sales Private Limited Pharmacy company Naushehro Feroze. The audit was conducted in presence of complainant and found the shortage of medicine amounting to Rs. 18, 58,822/- in which the applicant/accused was found responsible to have committed the misappropriation. In the investigation accused disclosed that he has sold out the said medicines and will deposit amount and kept complainant on false hopes as such complainant has lodged FIR with the delay of 16 days and such delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained by the complainant. Furthermore the ingredients of sections 420 and 406 PPC are very much applicable in this case as the applicant/accused being go-down incharge of the said company has committed the breach of trust and dishonestly misappropriated the amount. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made and nothing has been brought on record to show any ill-will or malafide on the part of the complainant, which is requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail. All the P.Ws have supported the version of complainant as such sufficient material is available on the record against the applicant/accused to connect him with the alleged offences. In this regard, I am fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 S C M R 1129] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-

''Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation----the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of malafide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."

7. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant/accused failed to make out a good case for grant of pre-arrest bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC. In such circumstances, the instant Crl. bail Application stands dismissed and interim order dated 09.12.2021 earlier granted to the applicant/accused is hereby recalled.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

Judge

Irfan/P.A