ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Appln. No.1976 of 2017

Applicant                   :           Ch. Muhammad Irshad

                                                through Mr. Naeem Mehmood, Advocate

Respondent               :           The State through Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG

Complainant             :           Muhammad Shahid through Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim,

advocate

Date of hearing         :           09.4.2018

Date of Order            :           09.4.2018

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    Applicant/ accused is present on interim bail granted to him by this Court vide Order dated 29.12.2017. Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.         The brief facts as per FIR are that the complainant is doing work of scrap and given scrap to accused for an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- in two years and against such payment applicant/ accused had issued three cheques of Rs.23,00,000/- and when the same were presented by the complainant in the concerned Bank which were dishonoured.

3.         It is contended by learned counsel for applicant/ accused that the case against applicant/ accused is false and has been registered due to business enmity. Besides, according to him the alleged incident had taken place from 15.02.2017 to 21.4.2017 during bank hours, whereas FIR of incident was registered on 07.12.2017, after the delay of about 09 months for which no explanation has been furnished, therefore, according to him, FIR was registered after due deliberation and consultation just to harass the applicant. He further submits that this matter pertains to civil in nature. Per learned counsel, the applicant has been approached to the trial Court for grant of bail, but trial Court had rejected the bail of the applicant without assigning any good reason. He further submits that in this matter challan has been submitted and this accused is no more required for investigation and the punishment of the offence under which the present applicant/ accused has been booked            under Section 489-F PPC, is for 03 years, which does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, as such under these circumstances, applicant has prayed for grant of bail.

4.         Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for complainant in view of the arguments of learned counsel for appellant has recorded his no objection, if interim order passed by this Court is confirmed subject to enhance the surety amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- to be furnished before the trial Court.  

5.         I, accordingly, in view of the arguments as argued by learned counsel for applicant confirm the interim order, however, the applicant is directed to furnish the surety of Rs.12,00,000/- immediately before the trial Court. Admittedly, challan has been submitted, therefore, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within the period of 02 months after receipt of this order. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side. It is made clear that in case if applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail, but after due notice to the parties concerned and hearing them.

6.         Needless to mention here that any observation if made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case.

7.         This Order has been passed in open Court in presence of parties’ counsel and they have acknowledged the same.    

In view of the above, this bail application is allowed in above terms.

                     JUDGE

asim/pa