ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-216 of 2022
(Pardeep
Kumar Vs. The State)
1.
For Order son office objection.
2.
For hearing of Bail Application
13-02-2023.
Mr. Shahzado
Dreho, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Shafi
Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G for the State.
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad
Ali Shah, J; It
is alleged that the applicant issued three cheques in favour of complainant Imdad
Ali dishonestly, those were bounced by the concerned Bank, when were presented
there, for encashment, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused
Pre-Arrest bail by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, 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; there is dispute between the parties over
settlement of accounts 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 about five than two months that too after
having recourse u/s 22-A & B Cr.P.C; there is dispute between the parties
over settlement of account and 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.