Shah Jahan vs The State
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, Shah Jahan and Gul Hassan, who were accused of fraud following the dishonour of a cheque issued to the complainant. The complainant alleged that Gul Hassan, acting as a middleman for the sale of the complainant's paddy, failed to remit the proceeds and instead provided a dishonoured cheque drawn on the account of Shah Jahan, his partner and brother-in-law. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of fraud, with witnesses confirming that the purchasers had paid the full amount to Gul Hassan, who failed to transfer it to the complainant. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicants were not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, which is reserved for innocent persons falsely implicated due to mala fides. The bail applications were dismissed, and the previously granted ad-interim bail was recalled.
- Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused against whom prima facie evidence of fraud exists?
- Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque by a partner/middleman constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail intended to protect persons against whom reasonable evidence of guilt has been collected during investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. M UHAM M AD IQBAL KALHORO,J- Complainant is a business man (dealing in different crops).
2. Applicant Gul Hassan, who is not present today, acting as a middle man sold paddy of complainant worth more than ninety lacs rupees to one Dhalo Mal, Seth Amar Wanio and Suresh Wanio on deferred payment. When complainant demanded his money from Gul Hassan, he gave him a cheque of Rs.9,50,000/- of account of applicant Shahjehan Laghari (as first installment). This cheque on presentation in the bank was dishonoured, resulting in registration of F.I.R against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants have argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case; there is no evidence against them of commission of any offence; complainant in respect of one cheque has implicated as many as five accused; the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; F.I.R. is delayed for about 15 days, therefore, malafide on the part of complainant cannot be ruled out. Their arguments have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G as well as Investigating Officer who is present in this case.
4. I have heard parties and perused the material available on record. Investigating Officer present in the Court has submitted that during investigation, he recorded statements of Dhalo Mal, Seth Amar Wanio and Suresh who admitted to have purchased paddy from complainant through Gul Hassan Laghari, to whom they had paid the entire amount of more than ninety lac rupees. But Gul Hassan did not hand over the said amount to the complainant, and instead he gave him a cheque of Rs.9,50,000/- of his brother in law Shahjehan Laghari who is also his partner, prima facie they both conjointly have played fraud upon the complainant and deprived him of his valuables. The investigation papers disclosing such facts are available, as per Assistant Prosecutor General, which show prima facie that the applicants are guilty of the alleged offence. Sufficient and reasonable evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against them. The applicants, while working co-jointly in prosecution of their common intention, forwarded to the complainant a cheque which on presentation was dishonored.
5. In view of such prima facie evidence, applicants are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail which is meant only to protect innocent persons who on account of malafide on the part of the complainant have been implicated in some criminal case. Such proposition in the present case in view of prima facie reasonable evidence against the applicants is not attracted. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants vide orders dated 22.02.2023 and 08.03.2023 are hereby recalled.