ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Appln. No. 1587 of 2016 _____________________________________________________
Date Order With Signature Of Judge
For hg of bail application
17.01.2017.
Mr. Ghaffar Khan Kakar, advocate for applicant.
SardarSherazAnjum, advocate for complainant.
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, A.P.G.
Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant Syed QaimRaza son of Syed Masiul Hassan Jaffery seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 750 of 2015, registered at P.S. Shahra-e-Faisal, under section 420/ 489-F, P.P.C. His earlier applications for grant of bail were heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi East bearing Bail Application No. 1383/2016, vide order dated 12.07.2016 and Judicial Magistrate- XVI, Karachi East, vide order dated 08.06.2016 in Criminal Case No. 1029/2016.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Masood Ahmed lodged the aforementioned F.I.R., alleging therein that he has a car showroom and he is also doing business of rent a car. In April, 2014, one person, namely, Syed QaimRazaJaffery told him that he ownedfertilizer company by the name of KisanSursabz Pakistan and supplied fertilizer all over in Pakistan, for that he would be taken vehicles from him on rent. He also offered him to be his partner and one Nazir, who was already partner of Syed QaimRazaJaffery, asked him to invest Rs.22,00,000/- and they will pay him monthly profit amounting to Rs.2,42,000/-. As such, the complainant paid them Rs.22,00,000/- in the month of May, 2014 for that they issued one cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- after one month, which was cashed and thereafter they told him that since the season of fertilizer was going off, they would pay him profit in lump sum after July or August and it is, thereafter, they issued cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 27.11.2014, which was dishonored on presentation.
3. The learned counsel for applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been implicated in this case with malafide intention; that the applicant is Director of firm, whereas, the CEO of the firm, namely, Nazir, who is the main accused, has not been arrested by the police; that it was only one complaint of dishonoured of the cheque otherwise all the cheques issued by the applicant to complainant in respect of profit on principal amount wereencashed; that the ingredients of section 489-F, P.P.C. are missing even otherwise the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C., hence the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the following cases:-
1. Amir IqbalChaudhry v. State (PLJ 2009 Cr. C. (Lahore) 371).
2. SajjadAkhtarKiani v. State (PLJ 2014 Cr. C. (Lahore) 66).
3. Kashir Khan v.The State (2009 P. Cr. L.J. 1418).
4. Khairullah v. The State (2009 P. Cr. L.J. 1421).
5. Sajjad Ahmed v. The State (2012 YLR 1828)
6. ZafarIqbal v. The State (2015 P. Cr. L.J. 95)
7. Muhammad Shafique Khan Swati v. State
(PLJ 2009 Cr. C. (Lahore) 237).
8. Muhammad Iqbal v. State (PLJ 2009 Cr. C. (Lahore) 240).
9. Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. The State (2014 P. Cr. L.J. 1060).
10. Babar Hussain v.The State (2014 YLR 1493).
11. Muhammad Naeem v.The State (2011 YLR 2272).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has maintained that the alleged cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- was issued by the applicant, which was subsequently dishonuored by the bank, therefore, the applicant is criminally liable for the commission of offence under section 489-F P.P.C. He has further contended that even the applicant has not denied the issuance of subject cheque. He has also contended that the accused is a habitual offender having issued similar cheques to other people as well is facing prosecution in criminal cases arising out of Crime Nos. 651 and 719 of 2015, registered at P.S. Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi-East by MunirulHusnain and Muhammad Naeem, respectively, hence from the criminal record of the applicant, he appears to be person of guilty mind. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the case of GhulamJillani v. The State (2014 YLR 1253) and NaveedMaqsood v. The State (2012 YLR 674).
5. Learned A.P.G. while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant, has also opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and complainant as well as learned A.P.G. and perused the material available on record.
7. The issuance of alleged cheque to complainant by the applicant is not denied, hence the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that he has been implicated in this case with malafide intention, finds no support from the material available with the prosecution. It is also an admitted position that the accused is involved in number of criminal cases of similar nature, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is non-bailable and in non-bailable offences grant of bail is not the right of an accused but a concession. The record shows that the accused is a habitual offender and has dishonestly issued various other cheques in the past which were dishonoured on presentation. Although, the offence for which accused has been charged carries imprisonment up to three years and as such prohibition of section 497 Cr. P.C. does not attract but in view of the malafides of the accused and his involvement in series of cases, related to offences adversely affecting public at large, he is not entitled to concession of bail.
8. For the foregoing facts and reasons, the instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed accordingly. However, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months hereof, without being influence to the observations made by this Court in the order, which is tentative in nature.
JUDGE