ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-591
of 2022
(Ghulam Mustafa Mallah
Vs. The State)
1.
For Orders on office objection.
2.
For hearing of Bail Application
30-01-2023.
Mr. Imtiaz Ali Abbasi, advocate for applicant.
Complainant
in person.
Mr.
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,
Addition P.G for the State.
>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant issued cheque in favour of complainant Fida Hussain dishonestly, it was
bounced by the concerned Bank, when was presented there, for encashment, for
that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused
Pre-Arrest bail by learned IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Khairpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant Crl. Bail Application under Section 498-A Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by the applicant that he
being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant and
the offence alleged against him is not falling within the prohibitory clause,
therefore, he is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on the point of
further inquiry and malafide.
4. Learned Additional P.G for the State
assisted by the complainant 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 about three months, such
delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; the offence
alleged against applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause; the case was
recommended by the police to be disposed of under C class. The 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 further inquiry and 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 Honble
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 Crl. Baail Application is
disposed of accordingly.
Judge
Nasim/P.A.