KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---By means of the captioned bail application, applicant Muhammad Ismail son of Ahmed Khan Jhatial, seeks pre-arrest bail in a case, emanating from FIR No.119 of 2019 registered at Police Station Mehar for offences under sections 489-F, 506/2, 504, P.P.C., after his plea for pre arrest has been declined by the learned Ist. Additional Sessions Jude, Dadu, by dismissing his bail application vide order dated. 06.07.2019.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant placing on record a copy of the plaint of F.C. Suit re- Muhammad Ismail v. Imdad Ali and others, submits that the applicant has filed the subject suit against complainant Illahi Bux and others for recovery and damages before the learned Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mehar, which is pending there; that there is 23 days delay in lodgment of the FIR, which has not been properly explained; that the complainant had supplied substandard fertilizer and seed to the applicant, causing damage to the lands of the growers to whom it was Supplied by the applicant also causing loss to the reputation of the applicant; that the applicant is a law abiding and is not involved in any criminal case; and, that the applicant has since joined his trial and is regularly attending the trial Court. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant.
3. Learned D.P.G has frankly conceded to the grant of the instant bail application, contending that there is inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR; that the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of the applicant; and, that there is no other criminal case against the applicant. Learned advocate for the complainant has opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, contending that the suit was filed by the applicant after the cheque was dishonoured; and, that no complaint from any grower has been brought on the record.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned D.P.G and learned advocate for the complainant and have gone through the material brought on record.
5. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that there is inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR as the alleged cheque was bounced on 02.01.2019 and suit, for recovery and damages was filed by the applicant on 16.04.2019 and whereas this FIR was lodged on 20.06.2019 by showing another incident for offence under sections 506/2, 504, P.P.C. to have taken place on 27.05.2019; the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; the parties are already tagged in civil litigation; and, the applicant has since joined the trial and there is no complaint of his having misused the concession of interim pre arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant. Under these circumstances I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted vide order dated 26.07.2019 to the applicant is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
6. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding this bail application which shall not influence the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case.