THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.526 of 2018

Applicant                   :           Muhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman Khan

                                                through Mr. Ajab Khan Khattak, Advocate

Complainant             :           None present

Respondent               :           The State through Mr. Sagheer Abbasi, APG

Date of hearing         :           04.5.2018

Date of Order            :           04.5.2018

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J: Applicant/ accused is present on interim bail granted to him by this Court vide Order dated 06.4.2018. Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.         Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.10.2017 at 1600 hours, the complainant namely Syed Hafzeem Ali COC of VI ADJ (South) Karachi, lodged the FIR in which he has narrated that accused Ameer Ali Lashari son of Khadim Hussain, involved in crime No.107/2016 under Section 489-F P.S. Aram Bagh came for interim bail along with the surety Mst. Shabana Khatoon (Rehana Khatoon) w/o Ali Mohsin on 28.10.2017 and she submitted an affidavit as surety on behalf of the accused, and on verification from the Identification Branch, District South, it came into knowledge that the affidavit produced by the surety is forged/ manipulated one. Hence, on the direction of the Hon’ble Judge, he lodged FIR against the surety for submitting of false/ fake documents and committed cheating and fraud.

3.         It is contended by learned counsel for applicant/ accused that the applicant/ accused is innocent and has been falsely booked by the complainant. He also contended that co-accused has granted bail. He next added that he has no concern with the co-accused and applicant/ accused has no nexus with the present case. He also contended that the punishment of offences under which the present applicant/ accused has been booked do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC.

4. As against this, learned APG while opposing the bail plea contended that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant/ accused with the commission of the crime. He further contended that there is no enmity with the COC or Presiding Officer of that Court. He further contended that present applicant/ accused is not entitled for concession of bail on account of rule of consistency as according to the case of present applicant/ accused is not same as of co-accused, who has been granted bail by the trial Court.

5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

6. It is an admitted fact that the case has been challaned and this applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. It also appears from the record that the whole case of the prosecution rest upon the documentary evidence, which in fact is in possession of the complainant/ prosecution, therefore, there is absolutely no question does arise for tampering in the evidence at the hands of the applicant/ accused. Since the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the documentary evidence and the evidence as collected by the I.O. appears to be interested, therefore, it required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the offence as alleged has been committed in a fashion as alleged in FIR or otherwise. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that this applicant/ accused is not a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past. It also appears from the record that the punishment for the offences under which the present applicant/ accused has been booked do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. No exceptional circumstance appears in this case to withhold bail of the applicant. Under these circumstances, I have come to this conclusion that the applicant/ accused has made out a case for grant of bail. I, accordingly confirm the interim bail order already extended in favour of the applicant on same terms and conditions with direction to the applicant/ accused to appear before the trial Court to face the trial. Since the accused has been challaned, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the case and decide the same as early as possible preferably within the period of 03 months after receipt of this order and its compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II; No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side. It is also made clear that in case if applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then of course, the learned trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant after due notice to applicant.

7. 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.

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

       JUDGE

asim/pa