IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.704 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
15.04.2025
Ms.
Neelam Javed Arain, advocate for applicant
Ms.
Rubina Qadir, D.P.G.
Mr.
Ahrar Jawaid Bhutto,
advocate for complainant
IO/SIP
Muhammad Bashir
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Muhammad Asim son of Muhammad Younus
seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.406/2024, registered at P.S. Tipu Sultan, Karachi for offence under section 489-F, PPC,
after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII
Karachi South vide order dated 18.02.2025.
2. Facts
of case are that complainant Muhammad Adnan is employed in a private company,
which extended credit funds to applicant/accused Muhammad Asim
through Swatch Retailer App., who is operating Sharija
Communication, with an agreement to repay the credited amount. Credit limit of
applicant was extended upto Rs.4,000,000/-,
who later on failed to repay the credited amount. However, in order to settle
his outstanding liability, he issued Cheque
No.00147240 dated August 5, 2024 which, on presentation, was dishonoured, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned counsel for
applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely roped
in this case against the actual facts and circumstances; that the FIR has been
lodged by unauthorized person; that the F.I.R is delayed for more than 2
months; that the alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of
Section 497 Cr.PC.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G appearing for the State, assisted
by learned Advocate for complainant, vehemently
opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that the applicant has issued cheque, which on presentation was dishnoured.
Counsel for complainant added that complainant was duly authorized to lodge the
subject FIR against the applicant. He further added that two other FIRs under
section 489-F, PPC are also registered against the petitioner and lastly prayed
for dismissal of instant bail application.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for parties and perused the material available on the record.
6 Admittedly, there is delay of more than
two months in registration of F.I.R without furnishing any plausible
explanation. The cheque in question is alleged to
have been issued by the applicant to the Company and not to the complainant.
The question whether the cheque was issued towards
fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F, PPC is a
question which would be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording
evidence. Applicant/accused is behind bars since his arrest. Furthermore, the
offences with which the applicant stands charged fall within non-prohibitory
clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, maximum punishment
whereof is three years. All these circumstances,
prima-facie, establish that the case against applicant falls within the purview
of Section 497(2) Cr.PC, entitling him to grant of
bail on merits. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not
falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception.
Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme
Court 34).
7. So far as the argument of learned counsel for complainant
that other cases of similar nature have also been registered against the
applicant is concerned, mere registration of criminal cases against an accused
does not disentitle him for grant of bail if, on merits, if he has a prima
facie case for grant of bail. Reliance is placed on the case of Nazir AHmed alias Bhaga vs. the State
(2022 SCMR 1467).
8. In view of the above
stated facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the case of
applicant/accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.PC, entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.
Therefore, applicant/accused Muhammad Asim son of Muhammad Yousus is
admitted to post arrest bail, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the
sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand Only) and P.R. bond in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. Needless to say, that the above observations are tentative in
nature, and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
10. Instant
criminal bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS