IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1724 of
2023
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE. |
Present: Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
For hearing of bail application
13.12.2023
Mr.
Muhammad Nazim Khokhar advocate for the applicant/accused
Peer Riaz Muhammad Shah DAG
Mr. Mumtazul Hassan advocate for the
complainant
Inspector Sanaullah FIA, CBC Karachi
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.- Applicant/accused Fawad
son of Abdul Sattar seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 03/2023, registered at
P.S. FIA, CBC, Karachi for offences under Sections 408/420/468/471/477-A/109/34
PPC. Prior to this applicant/accused applied for bail before learned Special
Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi, the same was rejected vide order
dated 23.06.2023.
2. Learned advocate for applicant/accused
mainly contended that there is unexplained delay of about 02 years in lodging
of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that prosecution
case is based upon documentary evidence and allegations against the
applicant/accused are yet to be determined at trial; that applicant/accused has
been involved in this case by the complainant when he left his job; that
applicant/accused is in custody since last 10 months, yet prosecution has examined
only one witness; that alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory
clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the applicant/accused has not committed the alleged
offence. In support of contentions, reliance has been placed on the case of
Syed Amanullah Shah vs. the State & another (PLD
1996 SC 241).
3. Peer Riaz Muhammad Shah DAG duly
assisted by Mr. Mumtazul Hassan advocate for the complainant argued that there
is sufficient documentary evidence against the applicant/accused to connect him
with the commission of the offences. However, learned DAG concedes that prosecution
case is based upon documentary evidence and alleged offences do not fall within
the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the relevant record.
5. We are inclined to grant bail to the
applicant/accused for the reasons that there
was delay of about 02 years for which no plausible explanation is furnished. The
prosecution case is based upon documentary evidence, yet case against the
applicant/accused is to be proved at trial. Applicant/accused is in custody
since last 10 months, yet only one P.W has been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly,
the offences with which the applicant/accused is charged are less punishable
then 10 years. Grant of bail in such like case is a rule and refusal is an exception as held in
the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The relevant portion is
reproduced as under:
“Grant of bail in bailable offence is a right
while in non-bailable offences, the grant of bail is not a right but a
concession/grace. Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for
less than 10 years is a rule and refusal an exception.”
6. Prima facie,
there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused has
committed the alleged offences but there are sufficient grounds for further
inquiry into his guilt. While relying upon the above cited judgment of the Apex
Court, concession of bail is extended to applicant/accused Fawad son of Abdul Sattar, subject
to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.10,000,000/- (Rupees One Crore
only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court.
7. Needless to
mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature,
the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of
the applicant/accused on merits.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Wasim
ps