ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-44 of 2023

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

06.04.2023.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Gopang, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Sanaullah Gilal, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged that the applicant by practicing fraud issued a cheque in favour of complainant Fayaz Ahmed dishonestly; it was bounced by the concerned bank when was presented there for encashment, for that the present case was registered.

2.        On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Judicial Magistrate, Qamber, and learned Sessions Judge, Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.

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 in order to satisfy its dispute with him over sale and purchase of plot; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than two months and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

4.        Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the applicant has committed financial death of the complainant. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Malik Muhammad Tahir Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR-2040).

5.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than two months; such delay has not been explained plausibly; the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause; the parties are already disputed over sale and  purchase of plot; the case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on the part of applicant who is said to be in custody for more than four months without effective progress in trial of his case; in these circumstances, a case for release of applicant on bail on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.

7.        The case law relied upon by learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances; it is not indicating delay in lodgment of the FIR and more-so, during course of hearing of his case, accused through his counsel impliedly accepted his guilt by showing his willingness to refund the money which he failed to refund.

8.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE