IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S – 850 of 2018

Waseem..………………………………………………………………Applicant

Versus

The State……………………………………………………………Respondent

Date of Hearing & Short Order 03.10.2018

Ms. Lubna Ashfaq Abbasi, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Zahid Mehmood, advocate for the complainant

Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi, APG

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This order will dispose of the instant post arrest bail application for the applicant waseem son of Mannan Khan. The applicant is seeking his release on bail in a case registered against him at PS Awami Colony, Karachi vide Crime No. 82/2018 under Sections 489-F & 420 PPC.

(2) I have heard the arguments advanced and perused record produced before me. From hearing of arguments at bar and perusing the record placed before me, I have observed as under:

(a) The allegations against the applicant are that he entered into a business deal with the complainant in respect of about 20 tons of wastage. An amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the account of the applicant but he did not deliver the promised goods. On continuous demands, he issued a cheque of his company amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- which was bounced.

(b) There is a delay of 14 days in lodging of FIR, which is not plausibly explained by the complainant.

(c) In the record, an agreement is available which indicates that the complainant has agreed to give the applicant time up to 20-4-2018 but before the expiry of the said date, the complainant initiated the criminal case against the applicant.

(d) During the course of arguments, it is revealed that four cheques amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- each were issued in favour of the complainant but as per FIR, he invested/deposited Rs. 25,00,000/-

(e) Although, learned counsel contends that more amount is payable but in the existing situation, it is the case of further probe as to why and how cheques of 40,00,000/- were issued against the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

(f) It is argued on behalf of the complainant that a considerable amount is due which has been usurped by the applicant and his wife, which the complainant intends to get back. However, in response to a query, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has yet not filed a suit for recovery under summary or ordinary jurisdiction.

(g) It appears that the complainant is using the criminal case as a leverage for recovery of some amount payable to him by the applicant. Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of criminal law where aim is punishment to the offender and not to the recovery of payment.

(3) in view of the above discussion, it is my considered opinion that a case of bail has been made out for the applicant, as such he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety of Rs. 200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) only and PR bond in the like amount up to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court.

(4) I would like to further observe that if after getting bail, the applicant becomes absconder from the trial, then the trial Court will be fully justified in taking every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.

J U D G E