IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.122 of
2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
20.02.2025
Syed Farhat Hjssain, advocate a/w
applicant/accused
Mr. Zahoor Shah, Addl: P.G. Sindh
Mr. Muhammad Azeem Khawaja, advocate
for complainant
IO/SIP Muhammad Tayyab of PS
Ferozabad
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Ahmed
Ramish Usmani seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.841/2024, registered at P.S. Ferozabad
for offence under section 489-F, PPC, after rejection of bail plea by learned trial
Court vide order dated 13.01.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that Shaikh Abdul Mateen lodged FIR, alleging therein
that on account of business transaction, against complainant’s investment of
Rs.26,955,000/- applicant/accused issued four cheques of Rs.5,400,000/-,
Rs.5,400,000/-, Rs.5,400,000/- and Rs.5,355,000/-, totaling Rs.21,555,000/-, drawn on Meezan Bank, Boat Basin Branch, Karachi,
which on presentation to the bank concerned, were bounced, hence the aforesaid
FIR was lodged.
3. Counsel
for applicant/accused submits that applicant has not issued above referred
cheques and said cheques were issued by his mother, namely, Yasmeen Usmani, who
is co-accused in the present case and she is absconder; that alleged offence
does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and his case
requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.PC. Hence, he prayed
for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
4. On the
other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by the counsel for
complainant, vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail to applicant on the ground
that applicant/accused entered into settlement deed in respect of partnership
dissolution deed, signed by the applicant and issued four postdated cheques of
Usmani Firm, therefore, complainant implicated him only. He further submits
that applicant/accused is involved in other identical cases and issued
fraudulent cheques in order to usurp huge amounts of money of private persons.
He further submits that applicant/accused has not joined investigation as well
as trial Court after grant of interim pre-arrest bail by this Court, as such,
he is entitled to concession of bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
and counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal
of record reveals that applicant/accused has issued four cheques of
Rs.5,400,000/-, Rs.5,400,000/-, Rs.5,400,000/- and Rs.5,355,000/-, totaling Rs.21,555,000/-, after entering into settlement deed in respect of
partnership dissolution deed and signing the agreement. Contention raised by
counsel for applicant that mother of applicant/accused is signatory in
aforesaid cheques and the said cheques have not been issued by
applicant/accused. Record reflects that account title is in the name of Usmani
Firm and applicant/accused is its proprietor. No doubt, alleged offence does
not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC but it is also a well-settled principle of law that
pre-arrest bail cannot be granted
in every case as each case has its own facts and circumstances. The
consideration of pre-arrest bail is altogether different from that of
post-arrest bail. The persons seeking bail are duty-bound to establish and
prove mala fide on the part of the investigating agency or complainant. The
bail before arrest is meant to protect innocent citizens who have been involved
in heinous offence with mala intentions fide and ulterior motives, which are
lacking in the instant case. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as 2020
SCMR 249 (Gulshan Ali Solangi versus
State), 2022 SCMR 750 (Ghulam Qadir
versus State) and 2020 SCMR 313 (Bilal
Hussain (deceased) versus President, National Bank of Pakistan).
7. From
the tentative assessment of the material available on record, the applicant has
failed to make out a case for a grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the
instant bail application is dismissed
and interim pre-arrest already granted to applicant vide order dated 15.01.2025
is hereby recalled.
8. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS