Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 3728 = 2026 SLD 3728 = 2026 SHC 1340
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. S-313 of 2026
Presented By: TASNEEM SULTANA JUDGE
Applicant: Nawaz Iftikhar Alam son of Nabi Bux Panhwar through Mr. Pervez Tarique Tagar, Advocate.   Complainant by: Mr. Imtiaz Ali Abbasi Advocate.   State by: Mr. Khalid Hussain Lakho, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.  Date of hearing 15.06.2026 Date of Order 15.06.2026

Nawaz Iftikhar Alam

VS

The State

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 489-F

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 497,497(2),498

 

Case Summary

Case Title: Nawaz Iftikhar Alam v. The State
Court: High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad
Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No. S-313 of 2026
Judge: Justice Tasneem Sultana
Decision Date: 15.06.2026

Facts

The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 19 of 2026 registered at Police Station Cantt Hyderabad under Section 489-F PPC. The complainant alleged that during business transactions involving the sale and purchase of vehicles, the applicant purchased three Toyota Corolla cars worth millions of rupees. After making partial cash payment, the applicant issued cheques for the remaining amount. The cheques were later dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and despite repeated demands, payment was not made, leading to registration of the FIR.

Applicant's Arguments

  • The case arose from a commercial/business transaction, not a criminal act.
  • There was an unexplained delay of nearly one year in lodging the FIR.
  • The ingredients of Section 489-F PPC were not attracted.
  • The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
  • The matter required further inquiry, making the applicant entitled to bail.

Prosecution's Arguments

  • The applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR.
  • The dishonoured cheques belonged to the applicant.
  • The applicant failed to establish mala fide on the complainant's part.
  • The applicant had previous criminal cases of a similar nature and therefore did not deserve the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Court's Findings

The High Court observed that:

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register