Crl. Bail Application No.S-470 of 2022

(Meer Muhammad Bharo Vs. The State)


For hearing of Bail Application


Applicant present in person.

            Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, Additional P.G for the State.


Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant issued cheque in favour of complainant Muhammad Usman Malik 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 Ist Additional Sessions Judge/(MCTC) Ghotki, 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 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.         None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Additional 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 three months, that too after having recourse u/s 22-A & B Cr.P.C; 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 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 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 Crl. Baail Application is disposed of accordingly.