1. Title: Ahmed Shakeel Bhatti vs.

State

 Citation: 2023 SCMR 1

 Court: Supreme Court

 Facts: The petitioner entered into a Share Purchase Agreement

with the accused for the sale of a sugar mill. The accused

issued a postdated cheque for Rs. 340 million, which was

dishonored. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the

accused.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The petition for leave to appeal seeking the

cancellation of pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

2. Title: Farman Hussain vs. State

 Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 398

 Court: Peshawar High Court

 Facts: The accused was arrested in an FIR under sections 489-

F and 420. He had issued cheques that were dishonored due

to insufficient funds.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The bail application was dismissed.

3. Title: Rao Ghulam Mustafa vs. State

 Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 499

 Court: Lahore High Court

 Facts: The accused issued a cheque to a special attorney,

which was dishonored. There were discrepancies in the

 complaint, and no exact date for the transaction was

mentioned.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: Post-arrest bail was granted to the accused.

4. Title: Arshad Mahmood vs. State

 Citation: 2023 MLD 992 Lahore High Court

 Court: Lahore High Court

 Facts: The accused applied for bail after being arrested for an

offense under Section 489-F. The registration of the crime

report was delayed.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as there were no exceptional

circumstances justifying denial.

5. Title: Roshan Ali vs. State

 Citation: 2023 YLRN 33 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: Multiple FIRs were filed against the accused for the same

offense. The case was classified for further inquiry.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: Post-arrest bail was allowed due to the multiple

FIRs.

6. Title: Liaquat Ali vs. State

 Citation: 2023 YLRN 5 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

  Facts: The accused sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR under

Section 489-F, claiming it was a business transaction.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The bail application was dismissed due to the

absence of any mala fide intentions on the part of the

complainant.

7. Title: Pir Bux alias Asif Nawaz vs. State

 Citation: 2023 YLRN 5 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: The accused sought pre-arrest bail, claiming the cheque

was issued as security. There was no evidence to substantiate

this claim.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The application was dismissed.

8. Title: Shahid Aslam vs. State

 Citation: 2022 SCMR 737 Supreme Court

 Court: Supreme Court

 Facts: The accused was granted bail by a Judge-in-Chamber

after pledging to compensate the complainant. However, the

cheque bounced.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The petition for leave to appeal was allowed, and the

accused was admitted to bail.

9. Title: Syed Bakhtiar Ahmed vs. Rana Muhammad Osaf

  Citation: 2022 YLRN 118 Quetta High Court

 Court: Quetta High Court (Balochistan)

 Facts: The respondent was granted bail subject to furnishing

surety equivalent to the amount of the dishonored cheque.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The revisional court set aside the order for depositing

the remaining surety amount.

10. Title: Waqar Hussain Bhatti vs. State

 Citation: 2022 MLD 1444 Lahore High Court

 Court: Lahore High Court

 Facts: The accused was arrested for issuing seven dishonored

cheques during business transactions.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: Pre-arrest bail was granted as no incriminating

material was available against the accused.

11. Title: Liaqat Ali vs. State

 Citation: 2022 YLRN 1662 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: The complainant remained absconding for about 8 years

after lodging the FIR. The accused claimed no involvement with

the complainant party.

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail application.

  Outcome: The application was dismissed due to the accused's

failure to establish his case and the complainant's claim being

supported by statements and evidence.

12. Title: Muhammad Yaqoob vs. State

 Citation: 2022 MLD 1004 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: The accused issued cheques with insufficient funds for

business obligations.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The applications for pre-arrest bail were dismissed

due to the prima facie element of dishonesty.

13. Title: Shakeel Ahmed Sahito vs. State

 Citation: 2022 MLD 1004 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: The accused issued a large cheque knowingly without

sufficient funds in his bank account.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

 Outcome: The petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

14. Title: Muhammad Khaliq Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2022 YLRN 144 Karachi High Court

 Court: Karachi High Court (Sindh)

 Facts: The accused issued a cheque as a guarantee.

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail application.

  Outcome: The application for pre-arrest bail was allowed due

to the case being fit for further inquiry.

15. Title: Muhammad Yasir Mehmood vs. Syed Sibt-e-Haider

Zaidi

 Citation: 2022 YLR 1046

 Court: Islamabad

 Facts: Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted

to the accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the

Penal Code. The accused was nominated in the FIR, and the

issuance of a cheque by the accused's company and its dishonor

by the bank was admitted.

 Outcome: Bail before arrest granted to the accused by the

Sessions Judge was canceled.

16. Title: Khurram Imtiaz vs. State

 Citation: 2022 MLD 329

 Court: Islamabad

 Facts: The accused faced allegations of issuing cheques that were

dishonored. Investigation had been completed, and the accused

was not required for further investigation. The accused was

previously a non-convict.

 Outcome: The petition for leave to appeal was converted into an

appeal, and the accused was granted bail.

17. Title: Shahid Sultan Durrani vs. State

 Citation: 2021 SCMR 827

 Court: Supreme Court

  Facts: The accused offered to pay the disputed amount of two

cheques to the complainant within a stipulated time in court. The

complainant was willing to accept the offer provided that bail

would be revoked if the accused failed to honor his commitment.

 Outcome: The accused was granted conditional bail, contingent

upon paying the disputed amount within a specified time.

18. Title: Sheikh Abdul Raheem vs. State

 Citation: 2021 SCMR 822

 Court: Supreme Court

 Facts: The accused had been arrested in a case related to

dishonestly issuing a cheque. He had also been granted bail in

three other similar cases. The court allowed the appeal, and the

accused was granted bail.

19. Title: Muhammad Imran vs. State

 Citation: 2021 PLD 903

 Court: Supreme Court

 Facts: The accused had been booked in eight criminal cases under

Section 489-F of the Penal Code. He was declared an absconder

in the present case for over a year and had a history of

involvement in such offenses.

 Outcome: The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and

leave was declined.

20. Title: Shah Zain vs. Jameel-ur-Rehman

 Citation: 2021 PCrLJ 1549

 Court: Peshawar High Court

  Facts: Accused persons sought pre-arrest bail in a case related to

dishonestly issuing a cheque and criminal breach of trust. The

complainant had alleged a significant business transaction with

the accused.

 Outcome: The petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed.

21. Title: Muhammad Azhar Iqbal vs. State

 Citation: 2021 YLR 2189

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Facts: The FIR did not specify the nature of liability against which

the cheque was issued. The accused had made out a case for

further inquiry into his guilt.

 Outcome: The petition for bail was allowed.

22. Title: Mirza Arshad Mehmood vs. State

 Citation: 2021 YLR 1839

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Facts: The accused argued that he had filed a civil suit seeking

cancellation of the dishonored cheque. The court held that merely

filing such a suit was not sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail.

 Outcome: The bail petition was dismissed.

23. Title: Khizar Hayat vs. State

 Citation: 2021 MLD 1597

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

  Facts: The accused claimed that he had issued the cheque as a

"guarantee." The investigating officer had not conducted a

thorough investigation into this aspect.

 Outcome: The petition for bail was accepted.

24. Title: Attique Ahmad vs. State

 Citation: 2021 MLD 4

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Facts: The accused was alleged to have issued a cheque as

security, not for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of any

monetary obligation.

 Outcome: The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed.

25. Title: Abdul Jabbar vs. State

 Citation: 2021 YLR 367

 Court: Karachi High Court Sindh

 Facts: The accused issued a cross cheque for a significant

amount, which was dishonored. The accused contended that they

had filed a civil suit due to a land possession dispute.

 Outcome: The interim bail granted to the accused was recalled,

and the bail application was dismissed.

26. Title: Adnan Shehzad vs. State

 Citation: 2021 PCrLJ 636

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

  Facts: The accused argued that he had already filed a civil suit

seeking cancellation of the dishonored cheque, but the court held

that this alone was not sufficient for pre-arrest bail.

 Outcome: The bail petition was dismissed.

27. Title: Zahid Mehmood vs. Additional Sessions Judge

 Citation: 2021 MLD 947

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Facts: The accused claimed that the cheques were issued as

security, and the investigating officer had not adequately

examined this aspect.

 Outcome: The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was

confirmed.

28. Title: Muhammad Ishaq vs. State

 Citation: 2021 PCrLJ 636

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Facts: The accused claimed that the disputed cheque was issued

as a "guarantee," but the court did not find sufficient evidence to

support this claim.

 Outcome: The bail petition was dismissed, and the order granting

ad interim pre-arrest bail was recalled.

29. Title: Khizar Hayat vs. State

 Citation: 2021 MLD 1597

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

  Facts: The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a

"guarantee," and there was no evidence on record to support the

complainant's contention of a significant business transaction.

 Outcome: The petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted.

30. Adnan Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJ 1001 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused's pre-arrest bail was confirmed due to a

compromise. The compromise had no specific time limit for

fulfillment, and there was no evidence of misuse or tampering.

 Outcome: Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

31. Ahmar Altaf vs. State

 Citation: 2020 YLR 2294 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused issued a dishonored cheque after a delay

in filing the FIR. Accused claimed it was a guarantee for a joint

business venture.

 Outcome: Petitioner was admitted to bail.

32. Noor Ahmad vs. State

 Citation: 2020 YLR 2064 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused argued that the cheque was stale as it was

presented after one year of issuance.

 Outcome: Pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

33. Sohail Alam Siddique vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJ 1445 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused issued a dishonored cheque, but there

was no material evidence of the obligation being fulfilled.

 Outcome: Bail was granted.

34. Sohail Ahmad Ghauri vs. State

 Citation: 2020 MLD 1873 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused's case was compoundable under Section

345, and the complainant had no objection to the bail

application.

 Outcome: Bail was allowed.

35. Muhammad Shabbir vs. State

 Citation: 2020 YLRN 22 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused argued that the charge amount was

heavy, but the court upheld that it was a bailable offense.

 Outcome: Bail was granted.

36. Salman Khalid vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PLD 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused offered to pay the amount of the cheque

and agreed to lose bail if he failed to fulfill his promise.

  Outcome: Bail was granted.

37. Khusro Mirza vs. State

 Citation: 2020 YLRN 22 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused issued a cheque as a successful bidder,

and it was dishonored. Delay in lodging FIR.

 Outcome: Bail was allowed.

38. Muhammad Ismail vs. State

 Citation: 2020 MLD 839 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: There was a delay in filing the FIR, and the

complainant filed a suit before the FIR.

 Outcome: Bail was confirmed.

39. Mithal Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJN 92 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Delayed FIR with unexplained delay by the

complainant.

 Outcome: Bail was confirmed.

40. Rashid Ali vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJN 91 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

  Brief Facts: Complainant's mala fide was evident in delaying

the FIR.

 Outcome: Bail was confirmed.

41. Shahid Mehmood vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJ 1195 ISLAMABAD

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused argued that there was no evidence to

prove the issuance of the cheque.

 Outcome: Bail was granted.

42. Anees Ahmad Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PCrLJ 268 ISLAMABAD

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused issued a guarantee cheque, not falling

within the prohibitory clause of S. 497.

 Outcome: Bail was granted.

43. Abdul Waheed Awan vs. State

 Citation: 2020 PLD 98 ISLAMABAD

 Nature of Application: Post-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: The accused issued a cheque without valuable

consideration.

 Outcome: Bail was granted.

44. Rana Abdul Khaliq vs. State

 Citation: 2019 SCMR 1129 SUPREME-COURT

  Nature of Application: Seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and

canceled pre-arrest bail due to the accused's strategy to delay

representation.

 Outcome: Pre-arrest bail was canceled.

45. Jibran Rasheed vs. Siraj ul Haq

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 44 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Ad-interim pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Complainant's mala fide and ulterior motive were

evident from the record.

 Outcome: Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

46. Mian Muhammad Tariq Shah vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 34 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Pre-arrest bail

 Brief Facts: Accused claimed mala fide on the part of the

complainant and disputed the jurisdiction of the High Court.

 Outcome: Bail was refused due to the prima facie case and

dishonest issuance of the cheque.

47. Title: Mian Muhammad Faisal Rasheed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2379

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Cancellation Brief

 Facts: The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail

granted to the accused. The prosecution alleged that the

accused received a sum of money from the petitioner with a

 commitment to return it. The accused issued a cheque that

was dishonored by the bank.

 Outcome: The petition for cancellation of bail was allowed.

48. Title: Tahir Masood Butt vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2125

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail

 Brief Facts: The petitioner was accused of issuing a dishonored

cheque for a motorcycle purchase. The complainant claimed

that it was a business transaction, not a loan repayment.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail.

49. Title: Muhammad Tariq vs. State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJ 872

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail

 Brief Facts: The petitioner's cheque was dishonored, but he

claimed it was given as security for a joint business, not for a

financial obligation.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail.

50. Title: Muhammad Rafaqat Yousaf vs. The State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJ 295

 Court: Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail

  Brief Facts: The complainant alleged dishonor of a cheque after

a delay in reporting. The accused claimed no financial

obligation.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail.

51. Title: Nazim Hussain vs. State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJ 1759

 Court: Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner claimed that the cheque was issued

as security for a joint business, not for repayment of a loan.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner.

52. Title: Shaikh Noor Muhammad vs. State

 Citation: 2019 MLD 1692

 Court: Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail

 Brief Facts: The petitioner issued a dishonored cheque for

motorcycles. The court found that the cheque implied loan

repayment.

 Outcome: The petitioner was refused bail.

53. Title: Muhammad Qasim vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 89

 Court: Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

  Brief Facts: The petitioner allegedly received money for foreign

visas but did not provide them. He issued a dishonored cheque.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner due to the heinous

nature of the crime.

54. Title: Syed Rehan Hashmi vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 56

 Court: Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail

 Brief Facts: The petitioner claimed the cheque was issued as

security. The court found no proof of this.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail.

55. Title: Muhammad Jan vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 75

 Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner allegedly issued a cheque that was

dishonored. The complainant was implicated in a similar case.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner.

56. Title: Abdul Rasheed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 53

 Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner's cheque was dishonored, and he

extended threats to the complainant.

  Outcome: Pre-arrest bail granted earlier was recalled.

57. Title: Iqbal Ahmed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2467

 Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner allegedly received money for foreign

visas but did not provide them and issued a dishonored

cheque.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner.

58. Title: Muhammad Saad Naseem vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 216

 Court: Peshawar High Court

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail

granted to the accused for not honoring a settlement condition.

 Outcome: Petition for bail cancellation was declined.

59. Title: Saleemullah Khan vs. Jehangzeb Khan

 Citation: 2018 MLD 273

 Court: Peshawar High Court

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The complainant alleged that the accused did not

honor the settlement condition for the dispute before

arbitrators.

 Outcome: Petition for bail cancellation was declined.

60. Title: Mian Muhammad Faisal Rasheed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2379 Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest

bail granted to the accused. The prosecution's case against the

accused involved a substantial sum of money, alleging that the

accused received the amount from the petitioner with the

commitment to return it. The accused later issued a cheque in

front of a witness, but the cheque bounced upon presentation.

The trial court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail without

finding any mala fide intent on the part of the complainant or

police towards the accused.

 Outcome: The petition for the cancellation of bail was allowed.

61. Tahir Masood Butt vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2125 Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The petitioner was involved in a business

transaction with the complainant, who alleged that the

petitioner's cheque worth Rs. 300,000 was dishonored. The

complainant contended that the cheque was issued as a

guarantee, not for repayment of any loan. The FIR was lodged

after a significant delay of almost 27 days.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted bail as the offense did not

fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

62. Title: Muhammad Tariq vs. State

  Citation: 2019 PCrLJ 872 Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The FIR in this case was registered almost three

months after the dishonor of the cheque. The petitioner had

not been convicted in any similar cases. No recovery was made

from the petitioner. The petitioner relied on documentary

evidence in possession of the prosecution.

 Outcome: The petitioner was granted bail as the offense did not

fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

63. Title: Muhammad Rafaqat Yousaf vs. The State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJ 295 Lahore High Court Lahore

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: A partial payment had already been made out of

the disputed amount related to the dishonored cheque. The

complainant's action in presenting the cheque for encashment

after partial payment raised suspicions of mala fide intent. The

court found that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory

clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

 Outcome: The petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail was

confirmed.

64. Title: Shaikh Noor Muhammad vs. State

 Citation: 2019 MLD 1692 Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner contended that the cheque in

question was given as security for a joint business, not for

 repayment of any financial obligation. However, the court noted

that the act of issuing the cheque carried the implied

impression of repayment. The petitioner had been convicted in

a similar case.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner.

65. Title: Muhammad Qasim vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 89 Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner allegedly received a significant

amount from multiple persons for foreign visas that were never

provided. The petitioner argued that the offense did not fall

under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

 Outcome: Bail was refused to the petitioner due to the heinous

nature of the offense against society.

66. Title: Syed Rehan Hashmi vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 56 Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The petitioner contended that the cheque was

issued as security, not for encashment. However, the court

emphasized that the act of issuing the cheque implied

repayment. The petitioner had not denied issuing the cheque,

and the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.

497, Cr.P.C.

 Outcome: The petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail was

confirmed.
67. Title: Abdul Rasheed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJN 159 Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The court noted that the accused had not denied

issuing the cheque, and it was dishonored due to insufficient

funds. The petitioner extended threats to the complainant,

reflecting negatively on his case.

 Outcome: Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was recalled.

68. Title: Moiz Naseem vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 53 Karachi High Court Sindh

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued

as security, not for encashment. However, there was no

evidence supporting this claim, and the offense did not fall

within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

 Outcome: The petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail was

confirmed.

69. Title: Abu Bakar vs. State

 Citation: 2019 PCrLJN 20 Islamabad

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The petitioner was arrested for issuing multiple

cheques that were dishonored. The court noted that the

punishment for the offense did not fall within the prohibitory

clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

  Outcome: Bail was allowed.

70. Title: Iqbal Ahmed vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLR 2467 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The petitioner sought the cancellation of post-

arrest bail granted to the accused. The accused had issued a

cheque that was dishonored, and the petitioner alleged non-

compliance with settlement conditions.

 Outcome: The petition for the cancellation of bail was declined.

71. Title: Muhammad Jan vs. State

 Citation: 2019 YLRN 75 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Refusal

 Brief Facts: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, but the court

found no grounds for bail in this case, as it involved a matter

of further inquiry.

 Outcome: Pre-arrest bail was refused.

72. Title: Zar Nasib Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLR 443 Peshawar High Court

 Nature of Application: Pre-Arrest Bail Grant

 Brief Facts: The petitioner was arrested for issuing five cheques

that were dishonored. The court granted bail as the maximum

punishment did not warrant withholding bail.

 Outcome: Bail was allowed.

73. Title: Muhammad Saad Naseem vs. State

  Citation: 2018 YLRN 216 Peshawar High Court

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The petitioner sought the cancellation of post-

arrest bail granted to the accused for non-compliance with

settlement conditions related to the dishonored cheques.

 Outcome: The petition for bail cancellation was declined.

74. Title: Saleemullah Khan vs. Jehangzeb Khan

 Citation: 2018 MLD 273 Peshawar High Court

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Cancellation

 Brief Facts: The complainant alleged that the accused did not

honor the settlement conditions related to the dispute before

arbitrators, leading to the dishonored cheque.

 Outcome: The petition for bail cancellation was declined.

75. Muhammad Shoaib vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 209 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: Accused had a history of similar cases. The

complainant argued against bail, citing the accused's

involvement in multiple cases of a similar nature.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

76. Nasir Iqbal vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 202 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

  Brief Facts: The accused issued a cheque concerning the sale

of a vehicle. The dispute between the parties appeared to be of

a civil nature.

 Outcome: Bail was granted since the offense under which the

accused was charged did not fall within the restrictive limits of

S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

77. Muhammad Ishaq vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 140 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The maximum punishment for the alleged offense

did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

78. Inamullah Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 136 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused was non-convict, and no specific

reason was provided for refusing bail.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as there were no specific reasons to

refuse bail.

79. Zakir Qureshi vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLRN 131 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

  Brief Facts: The accused issued a cheque in connection with a

vehicle purchase. The complainant failed to provide

documentary proof.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

80. Ghulam Rabbani vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 190 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused allegedly issued a dishonored cheque

in connection with a business transaction.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as there was no strong reason to

withhold it, and the accused had been behind bars for a

sufficient time.

81. Fazal Jameel vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Appeal against Acquittal

 Brief Facts: The accused had been acquitted based on

compromises made during the bail stage.

 Outcome: The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the

case had already been resolved through private settlements.

82. Muhammad Ibrahim vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 167 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

  Brief Facts: The accused had been behind bars for more than

a month, and the charge was ready for trial.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

83. Zia Talab vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused was involved in cases of a similar

nature, but there was no previous conviction.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

84. Shabbir Ahmad vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLR 459 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The complainant alleged that the accused issued a

dishonored cheque for indemnity.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as the offense did not fall within the

prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

85. Muhammad Fakhar Javed Khokhar vs. National

Accountability Bureau (NAB)

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJ 477 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Constitutional Petition

 Brief Facts: The accused faced charges under the National

Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

  Outcome: Bail was allowed, and the court focused on the

priority of cases involving a large number of defrauded persons

and amounts over Rs. 100 million.

86. Anwar Masood Khan vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJ 469 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused had issued multiple dishonored

cheques and sought a reduction in the surety amount.

 Outcome: Bail was granted with a reduced surety amount, and

the court emphasized that excessive surety amounts should

not be imposed.

87. Muhammad Kamran Bhatti vs. State

 Citation: 2018 YLR 1554 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused knowingly issued a dishonored

cheque for a substantial amount.

 Outcome: Bail was refused due to the element of dishonesty

and the nature of the offense.

88. Shahneel Gul vs. State

 Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 21 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 Nature of Application: Ad-Interim Pre-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused issued a disputed cheque as a

guarantee, and there was an element of malice in the

complainant's actions.
  Outcome: Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed based on

the circumstances.

89. Tanveer Hussain vs. State

 Citation: 2017 YLR 689 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 Nature of Application: Post-Arrest Bail Application

 Brief Facts: The accused had been in custody for an extended

period, and the complainant failed to provide specific details.

 Outcome: Bail was granted as there were no specific reasons to

refuse it.