IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 262 of 2023.
Date of hearing
Order with signature of Judge
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Fida Hussain Shah, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.
Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Applicant Hubdar Ali Kalhoro is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.39/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Larkana, under Section 489-F and 506 (2) PPC.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant Gul Hassan was known to applicant/ accused who runs show room and on 20.3.2023 accused obtained Rs.1819000/- from complainant for providing him car within one week but he failed to do so and on 10.4.2023 accused issued cheque in question in favor of the complainant in presence of witnesses, which on presentation was bounced by bank authorities on the ground that there is no amount in account of the accused.
Learned counsel for applicant mainly contended that, applicant is government servant and nine cheques including the cheque in question of the applicant were misplaced and applicant has got no concern with complainant and never entered into any transaction and that the alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Learned Add. P.G. opposed grant of bail in favor of the applicant.
Mr. Fida Hussain Shah, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and stated that the applicant/ accused is habitual offender, as there is many other F.I.Rs registered against him by different persons.
Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on the record.
There is a prima facie evidence against the applicant that he issued cheque in favour of the complainant against his liabilities, which on presentation in the bank concerned was dishonoured. The complainant has no motive to falsely implicate the applicant. No doubt the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause but the prima-facie evidence connecting the applicant cannot be ignored and the fact that if an offence does not fall within prohibitory clause would not make it a bailable offence and in such like cases bail as a right cannot be granted to the accused. More-so, this is an application for pre-arrest bail which, inter-alia would be considered if there is some malafide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant. No such material is available on record to infer that the applicant has been falsely implicated. In view of the above, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, this application is dismissed by recalling interim pre arrest bail already granted to applicant. The observations hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial.