IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1001 of 2017

Salman Shakil…………………...………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State………….………………………………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 27.07.2017

Mr. Hassan Feroz, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Irfan Bashir Bhutta, advocate for complainant.

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, D.P.G.

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicant is involved in a criminal case initiated against him on the basis of FIR No. 63/2017 lodged by complainant Shafi-ur-Rehman Paracha at PS North Nazimabad under Sections 489-F PPC read with Section 420 PPC.

2. As per FIR, the allegations against the applicants are that he had given a cheque of Rs.71,000,00/- as part payment of garment goods supplied to him by the complainant due to the closure of his own shop but it was bounced because of 'stop payment'.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant, while pressing the instant bail application, submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. According to him, the FIR is maliciously lodged against the applicant as the basic ingredient of the offence is missing. He submits that the business dealing is admitted within the body of FIR, as such it cannot be said that the cheque was dishonestly issued by the applicant to the complainant. He submits that the cheque was not bounced because of insufficient funds, but actually the applicant has 'stopped payment' due to certain business issues between the parties. He submits that previously the complainant was in good terms with the applicant and some cheques of the applicant are missing from his shop and now the same are being used by him to settle the business deal on his term. He points out that due to wrangling business issues, the complainant has already filed a civil suit against the applicant. He submits that after the arrest of the applicant, the complainant party has physically got control over the shop of applicant. The learned counsel takes reliance from 2013 PCrLJ 159, 2013 YLR 374, PLJ 2013 Cr. Cases 376, 2013 YLR 435 and 2011 YLR 117.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposes the instant bail application by submitting that the applicant fraudulently issued the cheque. According to him, the complainant has supplied him garments goods amounting to Rs. 2,75,00,000/- and he has usurped the goods supplied to him and now he is not making payments of the same. He draws the attention of the Court towards the printout of WhatsApp conversation filed by him and submits that the same indicates about payment of huge amount due against the applicant. He submits that after getting bail it is very likely that the applicant may go abroad, which will cause further problems for the complainant party. He takes reliance from 2013 YRL 566 and 2016 MLD 451.

5. The learned the DPG adopts the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced, I have gone through the relevant record produced before me. It has been admitted within the body of FIR that the complainant has provided garment goods from his shop to the applicant for selling the same because of the closure of his own shop due to the massive construction work of road in front of his shop. The complainant has admitted in the FIR that the agreed instalment was received by him for a few months but later on the payments were discontinued. It indicates that there was business relations between the parties and this fact also transpires from the WhatsApp conversation. The shop of the complainant was closed down due to construction work and in the same building the shop of the applicant is also situated. It is very likely that because of the same construction work the business of the applicant is also slimming down, which might have the reason for discontinuation of the instalments. However, from the existing position of affairs, it appears that the instant matter is a case of further probe whether cheque was issued dishonestly or not, as such a case of bail has been made out.

7. In view of the above discussion, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.1,000,000/- (rupees one million) each up to the entire satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that if the applicant is a holder of passport, then the same should be deposited with the Nazir of the District Court, Karachi Central. These are the reasons for my short order dated 27.07.2017.

J U D G E