Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 SHC 165
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Bail 164/2026 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Zubair Ahmed Mirza (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 165. In this matter between Cr.Bail 164/2026 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Zubair Ahmed Mirza (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Bail 164/2026 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2026 SHC HYD 1330 PARTIES: Zubair Ahmed Mirza (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 08-JUN-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Justice Ms. Tasneem Sultana(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD Cr. Bail. Application No.S-164 of 2026 [Zubair Ahmed Mirza versus The State]
Applicant: Zubair Ahmed Mirza (in person).
Complainant by: Syed Ali Abbas Zaidi advocate
State by: Mr. Altaf Hussain Khokhar, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing 08.06.2026 Date of Order 08.06.2026 O R D E R
TASNEEM SULTANA, J: – Through this Criminal Bail Application, the applicant Zubair Ahmed Mirza seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.24 of 202 6 registered at Police Station Kotri for an offence punishable under Sec tion 489-F PPC. His earlier Criminal Bail Application No.72 of 2026 havi ng been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/MC TC, Jamshoro vide order dated 28.01.2026, hence this application f or the same concession. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Mst. Romesa Shaikh alleged that the applicant/accused obtained an amount of Rs. 450,000 from her for business purposes and, after making partial repayment of Rs. 50,000, issued cheque No. 00151784 dated 05.11.2025 fo r an amount of Rs. 400,000. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishono red on account of insufficient funds. Whereupon, an FIR was registered agai nst the applicant/accused. 3. Learned applicant appearing in person submitted that he is i nnocent and has been implicated falsely; that the transaction was a b usiness dealing with Waseem Ahmed and not with the complainant; that an Iqramma executed in the presence of Waseem Ahmed and Faiz Ahmed supports his position; and that whether the cheque was issued as loan repayment or to meet an obligation is a matter for the trial Court. He argued that the offence does not fall within Section 497 Cr.P.C.; therefore, he prayed for pre- arrest bail.
Cr. Bail Application No.S-164 of 2026
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the application; contend ing that the applicant is named in the FIR and the cheque belongs to him; that the cheque was issued to pay a liability and was dishonored due to insufficient funds; and that sufficient evidence connects the applicant to the o ffence. It was argued that the dispute regarding the nature of the transaction does not warrant grant of pre-arrest bail; therefore, prayed for dismissal. 5. I have heard the applicant appearing in person, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, and have perused the available record with their ab le assistance. 6. It appears from the record that the cheque in question bearing No. 00151784 amounting to Rs. 400,000/- was allegedly issued in connection with a business transaction between the parties. The applicant ’s case is that his business arrangement was with Waseem Ahmed and not directly with the complainant. The record further reflects that an Iqramma was allegedl y executed in the presence of Waseem Ahmed and Faiz Ahmed. The parties are at variance regarding the nature of the transaction, the extent of repayment and the existence of any subsisting liability. In the se circumstances, a bona fide controversy exists regarding the essent ial ingredients of Section 489-F PPC. The prosecution must establish that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability o wed by the applicant to the complainant. The identity of the actual contr acting parties, the nature of the transaction, and whether a legal obligation existed requiring the issuance of the cheque are all factual questions that cannot b e conclusively determined at the bail stage and require evidence. Consequently, the matter calls for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. 7. Furthermore, the offence under Section 489-F PPC carries maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibi tory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The settled principle of law is that in offen ces not falling within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail is a rule an d refusal is an exception. Reliance in this regard may beneficially be placed upon the case of Abdul Rasheed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1948), wherein the Hon ’ble
Cr. Bail Application No.S-164 of 2026
Supreme Court observed as under: “Even otherwise, even if the complainant wants to recover his money, Section 489-F of PPC is not a provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount In view of the above, the question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of the loan or fulfilment of an obligation within the meaning of Sectio n 489-F PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. The maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence und er Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fal l within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception.” 8. Similarly, in the case of Abdul Saboor v. The State through A.G. KPK & another (2022 SCMR 592), the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the offence under Section 489-F PPC does not fall wi thin the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and that since the maximum sentence provided under Section 489-F PPC is three years, bail sho uld generally be granted rather than refused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further emphasized that Section 489-F PPC is not intended to serve as a t ool for monetary recovery, which is the domain of civil litigation und er Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the applicant has made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the instant pre-arrest bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail g ranted to the applicant vide order dated 04.02.2026 is hereby confirmed on th e same terms and conditions. 10. The observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case on merits. 11. These are the reasons of my order dated 08.06.2026. JUDGE Ahmed/Pa,