ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 02 of 2017

Applicant:                              Muhammad Rizwan Khan s/o Muhammad

                                                 Usman Khan, through Mr. Maroof Hussain

                                                 Hashimi, advocate.

Respondent:                         The State, through Mr. Adbullah Rajput, APG.

Complainant:                       Muhammad Iqbal s/o Muhammad Javed

                                                through Syed Zakir Hussain Pirzada, advocate.

Date of hearing:                   24.03.2017

Date of order:                       24.03.2017

-----------------

O R D E R

Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:-          After rejection of his earlier bail application bearing No. 1184 of 2016 for grant of pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 30.12.2016 by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Central, the applicant Muhammad Rizwan Khan son of Muhammad Usman Khan has sought, through instant criminal bail application pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 181 of 2016, registered at P.S. Super Market, Karachi, under section 489-F, 420 P.P.C. He was admitted to ad-interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 02.01.2017.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.11.2016, complainant Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Javed, lodged the aforesaid F.I.R., alleging therein that he dealt in cigarettes in whole sale, while accused Nadeem-ur-Rehman, Akber and Muhammad Rizwan were doing business with the name of Al-Rehman Stores and they had business relations with him. On 29.09.2016, all three accused persons went to the shop of complainant and purchased 250 carton of cigarettes, valued of Rs.81,29,252/- and in this regard they issued two cheques amounting to Rs.16,29,252/- and Rs.16,25,000/-, drawn on Bank Al-Habib, Liaquatabad Branch and Meezan Bank, Liaquatabad Branch, dated 26.10.2016 and 30.10.2016, respectively, which were dishonoured on presentation.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that the applicant has no business relations with the complainant; that the applicant did not issue any cheque to complainant in order to fulfill any obligation and the cheques pertain to dormant accounts of accused, which have been misused; that the applicant has been implicated in this case by the complainant due to malice and ulterior motive; that the alleged offence under section 420 PPC is bailable while the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C.

4.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to applicant/ accused on the ground that the applicant/ accused had business dealing with the complainant and against the purchased of 250 cartons of the cigarettes he issued the cheques, which were dishonoured on being presented.

5.         Learned APG has also opposed this bail application on the ground that sufficient evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with commission of alleged offence and no malice and ulterior motive has been shown by the applicant for implicating him by the complainant in a false case.

6.         Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, complainant and the learned APG for the State and perused the material available on record.

7.         It appears from the perusal of the material available with the prosecution that no sufficient material is prima facie available to establish that the applicant had any business dealing in the past with complainant or that 250 cartons of cigarettes were delivered to applicant against the alleged cheques. The record further reveals that the alleged cheques were un-paid for the reason of dormant account and due to the fact that the signatures on cheques deferred from specimen signatures. Hence, it is yet to be determined if the alleged cheques were issued by the applicant for fulfillment of any obligation. The applicant/ accused was admitted to ad-interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 02.01.2017 and admittedly he is attending the trial Court regularly and he has not misused the concession of bail. Accordingly, ad-interim bail, granted to applicant/ accused, vide order dated 02.01.2017 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

            The instant Bail Application stands disposed of.

                                                                                                     JUDGE  

hanif