ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. B. A. No. 1221 of 2022

(Muhammad Muzzamil vs. The State)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hearing of bail application

------------------------------

28.07.2022

Mr. Muhammad Yaseen, advocate for the applicant

Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch, Addl: Prosecutor General Sindh

-------------------------------------------

Irshad Ali Shah J.— It is alleged that the applicant issued appointment orders against payment in favour of certain persons through complainant Viki Tariq, those on verification were found to be fake, on being approached by the complainant for return of his money he threatened him to be killed, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Magistrate and learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East has sought for the same from this Court by making instant bail application under section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about six months; the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause; co-accused Samson has already been admitted to bail and the applicant is in custody since nine months, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of consistency and further inquiry. In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Dr. Abdul Rauf vs. The State through D.A.G. (2020 SCMR 1258)

4. None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant, however, learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State has opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the offence which he has committed is affecting the society at large.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 06 months, such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause. Co-accused Samson has already been admitted to bail. The case has finally been challaned. There is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on the part of the applicant, who is said to be in custody since nine months. In these circumstances, a case for release of the applicant on bail on point of consistency and further inquiry obviously is made out.

7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 

8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly. 

J U D G E