IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail
Application No.1129 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
---------------------------------------------
26.05.2025
Mr. Hashmat Khalid, advocate a/w
applicant, who is present on interim pre-arrest bail.
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
M/s Omer Soomro, Abdul Haseeb Qazi,
Shah Muhammad Mazari and Najiullah Siddiqui, advocates for complainant
Azhar Javed, SSP Investigation
Keamari, Karachi, IO/PI Ghazanfar Ali and PI Abdul Ahad of P.S. SITE ‘A’,
Karachi
------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Muhammad Yasir son of Naeem Ilyas seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.578/2024,
registered at P.S. SITE ‘A’ Karachi for offence under sections 420, 408, 406,
34, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-VII, Karachi West vide order dated 03.05.2025.
2. Brief
facts as disclosed in the aforesaid FIR are that employees of Mustaqim Dyeing and
Printing Industries, situated at Plot No.D/14/A, SITE, Karachi, namely, Shariq
Anjum Siddiqui son of Anjum Siddiqui, CNIC No.42401-2150499-5, Senior Officer
Procurement Department, Wali Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, CNIC
No.42101-84313/6-5, Deputy Manager Procurement, working in the company for 12
and 18 years respectively, responsible for delivery of stock of many kinds of
yarn/thread of the company to different weavers for clothing. In the end of
November, 2024, during Company’s audit, huge quantity of sacks of thread was found
missing from record. It was also unearthed that the same is
misplaced/disappeared from record on different dates and, prima facie, besides
both these persons other unknown persons are also involved in such acts due to
which Company has suffered loss of about Rs.35/40 Crores. Hence the subject
FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant/accused is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that applicant is not nominated in FIR and during investigation his
name has come on surface; that the applicant has joined the investigation and
submitted relevant record to the IO; that the alleged offence does not come
within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and it requires further
inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC; that this Court has granted bail to co-accused Anjum Pervez. He finally
prayed that interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant/accused may be
confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
4. On
the other hand, learned counsel for complainant opposed for grant of bail on
the ground that applicant in connivance with other nominated accused, employees
of Company has purchased yarn/threat on lowest price and he has made banking
transactions through co-accused; that this Court has already dismissed bail
applications of co-accused Nadeem, Shariq and Wali Muhammad vide orders dated
18.03.2025 and 08.04.2025; that sufficient material has been collected by IO
against the applicant, which connects him with the commission of alleged
offence. Learned counsel for complainant further submits that case of co-accused Anjum Pervez is on different
footings, who is not involved in the case, he is an old age person, therefore,
he was admitted to bail. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh adopted
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant and opposed for grant
of bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as learned counsel for complainant,
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the material available on
record.
6. No
doubt, applicant is not nominated in FIR but during investigation, co-accused made extrajudicial confession
regarding involvement of applicant, who used to purchase yarn/threat from
co-accused, whereby huge loss has been caused to the company to the tune of
Rs.35/40 Crore, approximately. Statement before police is not admissible under
Article 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but its Article 40 pertains to "evidence of fact discovered in consequence of information given
by accused." It essentially deals with how a fact discovered
because of information provided by an accused person can be used as evidence.
This Court has already dismissed bail applications of co-accused vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and 08.04.2025. IO present in
Court submits that applicant has failed to produce before him transaction
receipts in favour of the Company. The applicant present in Court has admitted that
he has paid sale proceeds of yarn/thread to co-accused through their bank
Accounts. In the present case, huge
loss has been caused to the company to the tune of Rs.35/40 Crore,
approximately and the present applicant is sole purchaser of
stolen/misappropriated yarn/thread in connivance of nominated co-accused. This
is a pre-arrest bail whereby the applicant/accused has to prove the case of his
false implication on the part of prosecution, which he failed to. No case of
extraordinary relief is made out, therefore, instant criminal bail application
is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the
case of the applicant expeditiously, preferably within the period as directed
in earlier orders.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature
and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS