' MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY, J.--- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On 24-5-2006, interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicants. Matter is fixed today for its confirmation or otherwise.
3. To show the falsity of the case of complainant, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to letter written by Taluka Police Officer, Qasimabad to District Police Officer, Hyderabad, filed along with statement, dated 25-5-2006, which makes mention of the fact that this applicant Niaz had purchased a Plot bearing No,RC.10, from late husband of complainant Mst. Anees Manzoor in consideration of Rs,40,00,000, but after his death deal could not be completed. Complainant Mst.
Anees made a settlement with this applicant Niaz that instead of selling the said plot she will return the amount to him. It is stated by learned counsel that in terms of that settlement as pointed out by T.P.O. Qasimabad, four cheques were issued by the complainant, but these cheques were dishonoured by the respective branches. As such this applicant No,1 has filed a report at Police Station Qasimabad under Crime No,8 of 2006 on 23-1-2006.
4. Learned counsel further pointed out that in counter to such F.I.R. Present F.I.R. Has been lodged by complainant Mst. Anees Manzoor on the basis of incorrect facts placed by her. According to him, the Cheque bearing No,46178162, referred in F.I.R. No,16 of 2006, is of the cheque book, which was in possession of deceased husband of complainant at the time of his death. Subsequently, the same was retained by Mst. Anees Manzoor Hussain as stated by applicant No,1 in his affidavit dated 23- 5-2006, filed before S.H.O. Qasimabad and is placed along with N.C. Report lodged on 23-5-2006.
5. In fact complainant at her own has placed the aforesaid cheque after torning it out from the cheque book in her possession.
5-A. Placing the facts on record it is argued by learned counsel for applicants that the dispute in between the parties is of civil nature, but complainant unnecessarily has dragged them in criminal proceeding, just to put undue pressure on them, to back out from their claim. To support his argument learned counsel has referred 2003 M LD 1745, wherein it is observed that "the bare reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature i,e, settlement of accounts and proper forum for settling the dispute is civil Court. The registration of the present case in the circumstances, prima facie, shows that mala fide on the part of the prosecution and the investigation agency".
6. Learned counsel has also referred 2004 YLR 1288, wherein it is held that "this also shows that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, if any basically is related to the money, allegedly given by the former to the latter. This prima facie attracts the civil liability of the petitioner in the matter, if it may be so and not any criminal liability"
7. Reverting to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mashooq Ali Samo, Assistant A.-G. Appearing for the State has objected to the filing of this pre-arrest bail application before this Court that instead of filing pre-arrest interim bail application before Sessions Judge applicants have directly approached this Court. This approach of learned State counsel has been controverted by learned applicants' counsel by referring PLD 2000 Kar. 6, 2004 SCM R 1167, observing that "It is true that normally a person, against whom a case has been registered, at the first instance, may approach the original Court having jurisdiction i,e, Sessions Judge in the matter of bail before arrest because propriety so demands but it is not absolute rule as depending upon the compelling circumstances of each case a person can approach directly to the High Court by invoking its concurrent jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Sh. Zahoor Ahmed v. The State PLD 1974 Lah.
256. The State v. Malik Mukhtiar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCM R 322; Rafique Ahmed Jilani v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 785; Agha Muhammad Jamil v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 901 and Shamrez Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 74. Besides it if such an application has been moved before the High Court and it has entertained and granted ad interim bail to the applicant then instead of dismissing it on technical grounds it should have disposed it of on merits".
8. In the light of above observations the objection raised has no force.
9. It is further contended by him, that both these applicants have been specifically named in the F.I.R. With reference to the statement of allegations alleged against them.
10. Mere mentioning of name of applicants in F.I.R. In all circumstances, is not a ground to justify the rejection of bail. In the present case admittedly money settlement with reference to a plot was going on in between the parties. Both of them very well knew to each other. Therefore, to argue that names of applicants in F.I.R. Is sufficient ground of their involvement is not based on sound footing.
11. According to the State counsel if the statement of applicant Niaz made in his affidavit of 23-5- 2006 is taken as correct then also his affidavit does not make mention of account number of deceased husband of complainant Mst. Anees Manzoor, of which she was holding the cheque book, therefore, it is uncertain that even if, the cheque as said to had been placed before police at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. Is from the very cheque book or not. The point raised by learned State counsel requires further enquiry. At the stage of bail application deep appreciation of case is not required, as it may prejudice the case of either party at the trial stage.
12. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties the report as placed by S.H.O.
Police Station Makki Shah dated 21-2-2005, before learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is of material fact wherein the contents of proposed F.I.R. Placed by brother of complainant, were investigated by him and as per this report no such incident as narrated in the proposed F.I.R. By the brother of the complainant, was reported to had taken place.
13. After going through the record it transpired that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature with reference to the settlement of accounts of, a plot transaction entered into in between the applicant No,1 and the deceased husband of complainant. According to learned counsel for the applicants, Mst. Anees Manzoor has backed out from the settlement arrived in between her and the applicants. To defraud applicant No,1, she had issued cheques, which were dishonoured by the respective branch. Therefore, to save her skin from forgery committed by her, she has filed this F.I.R.
14. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for applicants that these applicants have already joined investigation and no complaint of any misuse of concession of interim pre-arrest bail is appearing on record.
15. In view of the tentative assessm ent of record as placed and considering the different aspects appearing in the matter, interim pre-arrest bail granted to these applicants vide order, dated 24- 5-2006, is hereby confirmed in the same terms and conditions.