Zohaib Arif Farooqui vs The State
This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Zohaib Arif Farooqui, for allegedly issuing dishonoured cheques to the complainant, Muhammad Salman. After being denied pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of malafide, delayed FIR, and the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause. The High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a business or account settlement dispute, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation and a monetary dispute over account settlement exists alongside an offence outside the prohibitory clause, a case for further inquiry and pre-arrest bail is established.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether a dispute over the settlement of accounts between parties forms a valid ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicant issued cheques dishonestly , those were bounced, when were presented before the concerned Bank for encashment by complainant Muhammad Salman, for that the present case was registered
2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned IXth-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498 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 in order to satisfy his dispute with him over settlement of account; the FIR has been lodged with delay of more than one month and offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further enquiry and malafide.
4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General, for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has deprived the complainant of his money by practicing fraud.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. There appears to be dispute between the parties over settlement of account. The case against the applicant has finally been challaned and he has joined the Trial. In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide is made out.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.