THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.498 of 2018

Applicant                   :           Khalid Ibrahim

                                                through Mr. Ali Gohar Masroof, Advocate

Complainant             :           None present

Respondent               :           The State through Mr. Sagheer Abbasi, APG

Date of hearing         :           03.5.2018

Date of Order            :           03.5.2018

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    Applicant/ accused is present on interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide Order dated 03.4.2018. Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2. The allegation against applicant/ accused is that he issued 03 cheques to the complainant total amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-. When these cheques were presented before the concerned bank, same were dishonoured.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the case against applicant/ accused is false and has been registered due to business enmity. He further submits that the alleged cheques were issued by the applicant to the complainant with bonafide intention, but the said cheques have been misused by the complainant party just to lodge criminal case. He further submits that challan against applicant/ accused has been submitted before trial Court and this applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. The punishment of offences under which the present applicant/ accused has been booked do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. As such he has prayed for confirmation of bail.

4. Learned DPG has opposed this bail application on the ground that the name of the applicant is appearing in FIR and he has indulged in cheating with the complainant.

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 position that challan has been submitted and this applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. The whole case of prosecution based upon the documentary evidence which in fact is in possession of the complainant party, therefore, no question does arise for tampering in the evidence of the prosecution at the hands of the applicant/ accused. The punishment of offence under Section 489-F PPC is not more than 03 years or fine, therefore, the punishment of the said Section does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. No exceptional circumstance appears in this case to withhold bail of the applicant/ accused. It also does not reflect from the record that the applicant is a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past.

7. In view of the above, applicant/ accused has made out a case for confirmation of bail. I, accordingly confirm the interim 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.

8. Needless to mention here that the observation, if any, made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that the case in hand appears to cheating with the complainant, therefore, trial Court is directed to decide the case as early as possible preferably within the period of 03 months. In case if the applicant/ accused misuses the bail before the trial Court, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant after due notice and hearing the applicant but as per law. 

JUDGE

asim/pa