ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-239
of 2022
1.
For orders on office objection.
2.
For hearing of bail application
16-01-2023.
Mr. Safdar Ali Bhatti, advocate for
applicant
Mr.
Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy
P.G for the State.
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the
applicant issued cheque in favour
of complainant Aijaz Ali Khokhar
dishonestly and by practicing fraud, it was bounced by the concerned Bank, when
was presented there, for encashment and then he threatened the complainant of
dire consequences, when he demanded his money from him, for that the present
case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused Pre-Arrest
bail by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Gender
Based Violence Court, Sukkur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of
instant bail application under Section 498-A Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case
falsely; the civil litigation between the parties is pending adjudication
before the Civil Court having jurisdiction and the offence alleged against the
applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the
applicant being old, infirm and aged person is entitled to be admitted to
pre-arrest bail on the point of malafide.
4. None has come forward to advance
arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Deputy P.G for the State
has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he
has committed the financial death of the complainant by issuing fake cheque in his favour dishonestly.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of more than one month that too after having recourse u/s 22-A &
B Cr.P.C; the cheque, which
is subject matter of instant litigation, as per the applicant was misplaced for
that an N.C report was also lodged with the police, it was subsequently misused
by the complainant ; the civil litigation between the parties is said to be
pending before the Civil Court having jurisdiction; the offence alleged against
applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause; the case has finally been
challaned; applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of
misusing the concession of interim pre arrest bail on his part. In these
circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour
of the applicant on point of malafide obviously is
made out.
7. In
case of Meeran Bux vs. The State
and others (PLD 1989 S.C 347), it has been held by Hon’ble
Apex Court that;
“…….Since
the appellant remained on bail for more than one year before the bail was
cancelled by the High Court without abusing the concession of bail in any
manner and the reason given by the learned Session Judge for granting pre‑arrest
bail that the injury was on non‑vital part of the body of 'the deceased
i.e. thigh and was simple, was not without foundation, we would, therefore, in
the circumstances, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore
the order of the Sessions Judge granting the pre‑arrest bail.”
8. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and
conditions.
9. The instant bail application
is disposed of accordingly.
Judge
Nasim/P.A.