IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.2527 of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For hearing of bail application
-----------------------------
17.02.2025
Mr. Aamir Jamil Virk, advocate for
applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Warraich,
advocate for complainant
------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Ghalib Jalees son of Jalees Ahmed is present on interim pre-arrest granted to him
by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2024 in FIR No.392/2024, registered at
P.S. Mobina Town, Karachi for offence under section 406, PPC.
2. It is
alleged in the FIR that applicant/accused was employ of SSGC, the company
dismissed him from service on 27.08.2024, however, he did not return the
articles of the Company i.e. Car No.BNM-807 (Toyota
Corolla Black Colony, Model 1998), Voice Recorder, 2 chargers of laptop,
64GB USB, Company ID Card, document of vehicle, tool kit, fuel card and vehicle
instruments, despite notice to return the said articles, hence the aforesaid
FIR.
3. Counsel
for applicant submits that there is dispute between the employer and employee,
the case has been challed, the applicant is no more required for further
investigation and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory
clause of section 497, Cr.PC.
4. Learned
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh opposed the bail application on the ground
that alleged offence is not compoundable. Counsel for complainant submits that
all the misappropriated articles, detailed in the aforesaid FIR, have been
recovered from the possession of applicant/accused, he opposed the grant of
bail to applicant/accused.
5. It is
matter of record that Civil Suit No.1944/2024 is pending between the parties
before learned Senior Civil Judge-X, Karachi East. Counsel for applicant argued
that all the articles detailed in the aforesaid FIR have been returned to the
company, which fact is admitted by the counsel for complainant, however,
counsel for complainant he opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
Punishment for the alleged offence is three years, it does not fall within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within
the prohibitory clause is a rule and the refusal is an exception. Reliance is
placed on the case of Ali Anwar Paracha
versus the State and another (2024 SCMR 1596).
6. Taking into consideration all facts and
circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant/accused is
hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, trial Court is
directed to conclude the case expeditiously.
7. Needless,
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature
and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.
8. The instant bail application is
accordingly disposed of.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS