ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-09 of 2023
(Sarfraz
Ali Alamni Vs. The State)
1.
For Order son office objection.
2.
For hearing of Bail Application
13-02-2023.
Mr.Gulzar
Ali Almani, 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 Zeeshan Ali
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 Additional Sessions Judge Moro, 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 learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case
falsely by the complainant and the offence alleged against the applicant is not
falling within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the applicant 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 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
by the complainant with delay of more than two 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
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.