ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT
KARACHI
Cr.B.A.No. 810 of 2023
(Asif Raza vs. The State)
Date Order
with signature of Judges
1. For order on MA No. 5985/2023
2. For hearing of bail
application
08.06.2023
M/s. Abdul Samad Khattak and Ghulam Rasool
Khattak advocates for the applicant
Mr. Talib Ali Memon Asstt.PG for the State
Mr. Nazeer Ahmed advocate for the complainant
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
The facts in brief
necessary for disposal of instant bail application are that the complainant
purchased flat from the applicant, it sustained damage and was asked by the
applicant to vacate against the payment, which he vacated on receipt of a
cheque towards part price for the said flat, it was bounced when was presented
before the concerned Bank for encashment, for that the present case was
registered.
The applicant on having
been refused bail by learned II-Judicial Magistrate Karachi East and learned III-Additional
Sessions Judge, Karachi East, has sought for the same from this Court by way of
instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.
It is contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved
in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his dispute with
him over possession of the flat; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with
delay of more than one month; the cheque was conditional, it was to be encashed
on account of return of file, which has not yet been returned to the applicant
by the complainant; offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within
prohibitory clause, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail
on point of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case
of Abdul Saboor vs. The State through A.G
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (2022 SCMR 592).
Learned Asstt. P.G for the
state and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the
applicant on bail by contending that he has committed financial death of the
complainant.
Heard arguments and
perused the record.
The FIR of the incident
has been lodged with delay of more than one month; such delay having not been
explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the
applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause. The dispute between the
parties exists over payment of flat. The case has finally been challaned and
there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on the part of the
applicant who is said to be in custody since 03 months without effective
progress in trial of his case. In these circumstances, a case for release of
the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.
In view of above, the applicant
is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
Instant
bail application is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE