IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.2769 of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
28.04.2025
Mr.
Tanveer Ali Abbasi, advocate
for applicant
Ms.
Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr.
Hafeez-ur-Rehman, advocate for complainant
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Zain Moinuddin son of Moinuddin seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.1207/2024,
registered at P.S. Shah Latif Town, Karachi for
offence under section 489-F, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned District
& Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi vide order dated
20.11.2024.
2. Facts
involved in this case are that on 24.09.2024, complainant Muhammad Ashfaque lodged FIR, alleging therein that he gave
Rs.41,00,000/- to accused Zain Moinudin
for arranging visas of Australia for complainant and for that of his friends,
which he failed to, as such, said amount was demanded back, he returned
Rs.2,000,000/- and for remaining Rs.2,100,000/- he issued a postdated cheque A-48968447;
on 15.06.2024 said cheque was deposited in Bank,
which was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds,
hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that complainant has admitted in his FIR that
applicant had paid back Rs.2Million whereas for the remaining outstanding
amount he placed on record different receipts, perusal of the same reveals that
an amount of Rs.1,880,000/- has been plaid from the outstanding amount and only
Rs.170,000/- remain outstanding against him, which has to be paid by the
applicant in lieu of security; that there is delay of 10 months in lodging of
FIR without any plausible explanation; that the alleged offence does not fall
within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC;
that the applicant did not remain fugitive from law and on merits his case
requires further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On
the other hand, learned Addl: P.G. Sindh, assisted by
learned counsel for complainant, vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the
ground that a huge amount of Rs.2,100,000/- is
outstanding against the applicant/accused and dishonestly cheque
was issued and no such amount has been paid by applicant.
5. I
have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused
the record available on the record.
6 Admittedly,
there is a delay of 10 months in registration of F.I.R without furnishing any plausible
explanation. It is alleged in the FIR that there is Rs.2,100,000/-
outstanding against the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has placed on
record different receipts which reveal that applicant has paid Rs.1,300,000/- on 30.12.2023, Rs.500,000/- on 17.01.2024 and Rs.80,000/-
on 08.02.2024. Payment receipt dated 28.02.2024 reveals that outstanding amount
is Rs.170,000/- but the complainant is claiming Rs.2,100,000/- which is
unjustified, it requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.PC.
Furthermore, the offence with which the applicant is charged falls within the non-prohibitory
clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, maximum punishment
whereof is for 3 years. It is settled by now that merits of the case be
considered in pre-arrest bail as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases
of Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafrullah
(1986 SCMR 1380) and Muhammad Ijaz versus The State
(2022 SCMR 1271). Therefore, interim
pre-arrest bail granted to applicant by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024
is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
7. Needless
to say, that the above observations are tentative in nature, and shall not
prejudice the case of either party at trial.
8.
Instant criminal bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS