IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Criminal Bail Application No.306 of 2019

 

DATE              ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE                    

 

Applicant              :         Syed Rizwan Ali son   of   Syed   Abrar  Ali,

through M/s. Syed Nadeem-ul-Haque & Liaquat Ali Khan, Advocate.

 

Respondent          :         The State through Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan,

Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Date of hearing     :         02.05.2019

 

Date of decision    :         02.05.2019

 

O R D E R

 

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.469 of 2018 registered at police station Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, under Section 489-F/420/34, PPC, whereby the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the bail plea of the applicant vide order dated 27.10.2018.

 

2.       The allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he has allegedly issued a cheque amounting to Rs.900,000/- to the complainant Syed Najeeb Ahmed Bukhari for encashment and when this cheque was presented by the complainant in Meezan Bank, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Branch, Block-2, Karachi, the same was dishonored on 04.07.2018.

 

3.       Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia argued that the case against the applicant/accused is false and has been registered by the complainant due to business enmity; that incident took place in between 01.03.2018 to 04.07.2018, whereas, FIR of the said incident was lodged on 05.10.218, after the delay of about three months, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the complainant, therefore, on this ground alone, false implication of the applicant/accused in this case with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out; that the dispute between the applicant/accused and complainant is of civil in nature and during business relations, the cheque was issued to the complainant as security; that it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence as narrated in the FIR in a fashion as stated in FIR or otherwise, till then, the case of the applicant/accused requires further probe.

 

4.       In contra, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed this bail application on the ground that applicant/accused has issued a cheque of Rs.900,000/-, which was subsequently dishonored, therefore, according to him, the applicant/accused has committed cheating and forgery with the complainant.

 

5.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

 

6.       It is an admitted position that case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. It appears from the record that incident took place on 04.07.2018, whereas, FIR of the said incident was lodged on 05.10.218, after the delay of about three months, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the complainant, therefore, on this ground, false implication of the applicant/accused in this case with due deliberation or consultation could not be ruled out. The whole case of the prosecution is rest upon the documentary evidence, which is in possession of complainant, therefore, there is no question of apprehension of tampering of the evidence at the hands of applicants/accused. since the whole case of prosecution rest upon documentary evidence, therefore, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial by the trial Court as to whether the applicant/accused is involved in the offence or otherwise, therefore, this fact requires further probe. Besides, the punishment under which the applicant has been booked do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, under this situation, grant of bail to the accused is a rule and its refusal is an exception, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements. No exceptional ground has been pointed out by the learned Additional Prosecutor General to withhold the bail of present applicant.

 

7.       As observed above, challan has been submitted and this accused is no more required for further investigation, therefore, under the circumstances, the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail. I accordingly in view of what has been discussed above, allow the captioned bail application. Consequently, the applicant/accused is granted bail, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] and PR Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.

 

8.       Needless to mention here that observations, if any, made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. It is made clear that in case applicant/accused during proceedings before the trial Court, misuses the concession of bail, then the trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of applicant/accused without making any reference to this Court, but as per law.

 

JUDGE

 

 

Faizan/PA*