IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 891 of 2018
Abdul Salam
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing & Short Order : 07.09.2018
Mr.
Ali Gohar Masroof, advocate
for applicant
Mr.
Ayaz Ali Chandio, advocate
for complainant
Mr. Sagheer Abbasi,
APG
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui,
J: The
applicant is involved in a case registered against him by lodging FIR No. 142
of 2018 at PS Baghdadi under Section 489-F PPC. His bail plea was declined by
the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi South vide
order dated 13-05-2018, as such the instant application is filed.
2.
After
giving audience to arguments advance by the learned counsel representing either side as
well as APG, have gone through the relevant record as well as cited case laws
from either side. From whatever argued and presented, I have observed as under:
i)
The
allegations against the applicant is that the complainant has started business
of fish and prawn with him and has given him merchandise (fish and prawn) worth Rs. 40,00,000/- for which,
applicant issued for cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- each.
Allegedly, those cheques could not be negotiated by the bankers and
dishonoured.
ii)
The business transaction between the parties is admitted and it is
also admitted that the cheques were issued in respect of routine business
transaction.
iii)
It
is argued and substantiated from the record that civil suit is pending in
respect of certain monetary claims from the applicant side.
iv)
It
is argued on behalf of the applicant that considerable amount is due against
the complainant party and in the admitted position of business dealing and in
the backdrop of civil suit filed by the applicant party as well as the factual
position of a direction issued by the applicant to banker for stoppage of
payment, it is to be looked into during trial, whether cheques were issued
dishonestly or not.
v)
It
is also emphatically argued and substantiated from the record that previously
similar cases were lodged by the complainant against the applicant party, which
were eliminated on the acquittal of the applicant. In this respect photo copy
of the judgement of Criminal Case No. 1039/2017 is annexed and marked as E.
vi)
It
is worth to mention that the aforementioned criminal case pertains to Section
489-F. It is revealed from the judgement annexed that the subject matter of the
said criminal case is also in respect of goods delivered by the complainant in
the shape of prawn (shrimp).
vii)
In
the existing position of affairs, the case against the applicant is not free
from further probe.
3.
In
the milieu of the above observation, I am of the considered view that a case of
bail has been made out for the applicant, as such she was admitted to bail
subject to furnishing surety of Rs. 100,000/- up to
the entire satisfaction of the trial Court through a short order dated
16-08-2018.
4.
Before
parting, I would like to further observe that if the applicants after getting
bail will not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied
that the applicants become absconders then the trial Court is fully authorised
to take every action against the applicants and their surety including
cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.
5.
The
above are the reasons for my short order pronounced on 07-09-2018
J U D G E