Crl. Bail Application No.S-239 of 2022


1.     For orders on office objection.

2.     For hearing of bail application


          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.