2021 P Cr (PLP)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

By means of this criminal bail application, applicant Shahid Hussain son of Gulab Khan Memon seeks his release on post arrest bail in case, emanating from FIR No.28 of 2019 registered at Police Station Rehmatpur, Larkana, for offences under sections 489-F, 420, 406, 506(2), P.P.C., after his plea for bail was declined by learned trial Court namely, Civil Judge and IV-Judicial Magistrate Larkana, vide order dated 05.04.2019 and by the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 22.04.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that applicant has been falsely. implicated in the subject FIR by the complainant with mala fide intention due to his enmity with him on money transactions in business; that there is inordinate delay of fifteen (15) days in lodgment of the FIR, which has not been properly explained; that no amount of the complainant is outstanding against the applicant; that the subject cheque of Rs.100,000/- was misused by the complainant; and, that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), Nadeem Ansari and another v. The State (2018 PCr.LJ 883), Anwar Masood Khan v. The State and others (2018 PCr.LJ 469), Ghulam Rabbani v. The State and others (2018 PCr.LJ Note 190), Zia Talab v. The State through Additional Advocate-General and another (2018 PCr.LJ Note 163), Muhammad Saad Naseem v. The State and another (2018 PCr.LJ 174), Muhammad Idrees Bugsra v. The State (2018 MLD 1950) and Abu Bakar v. The State and another (2019 PCr.LJ Note 20). Learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR; that the applicant has defrauded the complainant by issuing the subject cheque which was dishonoured; and, that it is early stage of the case before the learned trial Court, and, the evidence is yet to be recorded. Learned counsel for the complainant placing his reliance on the cases of Jehan Khan v. The State (PLD 2006 Lahore 302), Saman Imtiaz v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 805 Lahore), Muhammad Naeem v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 504 Lahore), Asad Ali v. The State and another (2011 PCr.LJ 752 Lahore), Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim v. The State and another (2012 PCr.LJ 1956), Naveed Maqsood v. The State (2012 YLR 674) and Sardar Bahadur Mughal v. The State and another (2013 PCr.LJ 1022), prays that this bail application may be dismissed.

4. The learned D.P.G. has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, but he has not been able to controvert any of contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Advocate for complainant and the learned D.P.G. and have gone through the material brought on the record and the police file with the assistance of the learned D.P.G.

6. From a perusal of record it would be seen that the subject cheque of Rs.100,000/- was shown to have been issued on 01.11.2018, and it was submitted in the bank for its drawl on 03.03.2019, when it was allegedly dishonoured, but the FIR was lodged on 18.3.2019 and the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of P.Ws Nazir Ahmed son of Muhammad Yousif Channa and Shaman Ali son of Dhani Bux Chandio were recorded with two days further delay on 20.03.2019 and there is no explanation for such an inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR and recording the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid P.Ws; the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; and, the investigation of the case stood completed and the person of the applicant is no more required for the purpose of investigation. On a query, learned D.P.G after going through the police file submits that on 26.03.2019 on the orders passed by the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana a raid was conducted at police station Rehmatpur, where the applicant was found detained in lockup, but his arrest was shown in this case and since then the applicant is in custody. I have seen the order, which reveals that the bail was declined to applicant mainly on the ground that he was shown involved in some other cases. On a query learned D.P.G, referring to order dated 08.04.2019, passed by learned 3rd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, in Criminal Bail Application No. 22 of 2019, re; State v. Shahid and others filed in the criminal case based on FIR No.159 of 2010, registered at P.S Civil Line Larkana, for offence under sections 420, 406, 506(2), P.P.C, submits that the applicant was granted bail in the said case even after declining bail to him in the instant case and order dated 03.04.2019, passed by learned Ist Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, in Criminal Bail Application No. 19/2019, re; State v. Shahid Hussain Memon filed in the criminal case based on FIR No.138 of 2010, registered at Police Station Rehmatpur, for offences under sections 392, 215, P.P.C, whereby the bail was also granted to the applicant in the said case. On a query learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that apart from the instant case and two other cases referred to herein before, there is no other case registered against the applicant, who, per him, is also not a previous convict. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant being distinguished on facts and circumstances is not helpful for the complainant as none of the cases quoted at bar by the learned counsel for the complainant involved the facts and circumstances as are involved in the case one in hand. 6(sic.) Under the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant and his case falls well within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, which entitles him to the grant of concession of bail. Accordingly, this bail application was allowed and applicant Shahid Hussain Memon was directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Five hundred thousand rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court vide order dated 17.6.2019, and these are reasons for the same.

7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, only for the purpose of deciding present bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case. SA/S-63/Sindh Bail granted.