IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.546 of 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)
1. FOR ORDERS ON OFFICE OBJECTION AT ‘A’
2. FOR HEARING OF BAIL APPLICATION
Date of hearing: 09.5.2019
Date of Order: 09.5.2019
Mr. Muhammad Riaz, advocate for applicant
Mr. Abdullah Rajput, Deputy Prosecutor General
ORDER
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from trial Court in Crime No.29/2019 registered under Sections 489-F PPC at P.S. SITE-B. Now the applicant Muhammad Imran son of Nazar Hussain is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.
2. The allegation against applicant/ accused is that he issued different cheques of different dates to the complainant total amounting to Rs.716,000/- as stated in the FIR and when these cheques were presented by complainant in Habib Bank Ltd. Shershah Branch, Karachi, same were dishonoured on account of insufficient balance.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant/ accused that the case against the applicant/ accused is false and has been registered due to business enmity; that in fact no incident has taken place in a fashion as stated in FIR; that the case has been challaned and this applicant is no more required for investigation and the punishment of the offence under which the present applicant/ accused has been booked in this case do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, therefore, applicant may be granted bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicant/ accused is involved in a case of cheating and forgery with complainant, therefore, no relief may be extended in favour of the applicant.
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. This applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. The whole case of prosecution rest upon the documentary evidence which is in possession of the complainant party, therefore, no question does arise for tampering the same at the hands of applicant. Besides this, the alleged incident was taken place on 12.9.2018, whereas FIR was lodged on 22.1.2019 after the delay of about 04 months, for which no explanation has been furnished, therefore, on this ground false implication of the applicant/ accused in this case could not be ruled out. Since the case in hand is of alleged dishonoured cheques, therefore, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the present applicant has issued subject cheques to the complainant party malafidely or bonafidely, besides this, punishment of the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is not more than 03 years, thus it appears that the case of the applicant do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. Under these circumstances, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in certain cases. No exceptional circumstance appears in this case to withhold the bail of the applicant/ accused.
7. Under these circumstances, I have come to this conclusion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. I, accordingly, admit the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. 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. It is made clear that in case if during proceedings the applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant without making any reference to this Court but as per law.
Judge
asim/pa