ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-395 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

Applicant:                                  Imtiaz Memon through

                                                  Syed Mujahid Ali Shah, Advocate

 

Complainant:                             Nemo

 

State:                                         Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed, DPG

 

Date of hearing:                         10.09.2021

 

Dated of order:                           10.09.2021

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:             Applicant/accused Imtiaz son of Sirajuddin Memon, seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.43/2021, registered at Police Station SIRS, District Sukkur, u/s 420, 406, 465, 468, 470 & 472 PPC. His earlier pre-arrest bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur, vide order dated 26.06.2021 and after rejection of his bail plea, he approached this court for the same relief.

2.              As per FIR, the allegation is that accused Nusrat Shah received Rs.3000/- from one Muhammad Ismail and handed over him a forged and fake domicile which after verification from NADRA Rohri also found fake for which said Muhammad Ismail moved application to Deputy Commissioner for verification of such domicile and after said inquiry that was not found in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur. Thereafter the complainant, being PA to DC, went to the pointed place i.e. near GPO Office where the said Muhammad Ismail pointed to one Nusrat Shah, who on inquiry could not produce the license and was taken into custody while the remaining persons sitting on the tables, succeeded to escape away. On inquiry, the complainant party came to know that co-accused was Imtiaz Memon and from his table two fake stamps were secured in the name of Ghulam Sarwar Abro, Oath Commissioner, hence this FIR.

3.              Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant party with malafide intention as well as due to personal grudge; that the applicant has no concern with the said domicile nor has he received any amount from said Ismail Mangi; that Complainant himself not a man of good nature, he used to obtain illegal gratification from the public; that there is no any permission from the Court of law or any competent authority for conducting such raid; that the alleged recovery as shown in the FIR has been foisted upon the applicant; that alleged offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of 497 (ii) Cr.P.C, therefore, he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4.           Learned Additional Prosecutor General conceded for confirmation of pre-arrest in view of the facts that the  offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

 

5.              I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

6.              Record reflects that one Muhammad Ismail, who was allegedly cheated by applicant, had not the complainant of FIR; however PA to DC had become complainant of FIR for which he has no authority to lodge the FIR on behalf of private complainant nor any authority letter was produced in favour of the Complainant, which prima facie shows the malafide of the complainant in registration of present FIR. As regards to the involvement of applicant only the trial Court after recording the evidence of witnesses can form an opinion. However, at this stage, the applicant was not arrested at spot nor any efforts for arrest were taken at the time of raid, there is no evidence which shows that the table from which stamps were recovered belongs to the Applicant.

7.              It is settled principle of law that bail applications are to be decided tentatively and deeper appreciation is not permissible from the tentative assessment of the material available on record, the applicant make out the case for confirmation of his pre-arrest bail, therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant / accused by this court vide order dated 29.06.2021, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

 

8.              Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

 

9.              Instant Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                                                       JUDGE

 

Faisal Mumtaz /PS