IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.3186 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
---------------------------------------------
26.02.2026
Mr.
Shafqat Gul Malik, advocate for applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. & Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Complainant
present
------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Mujahid Hakeem son of Abdul Hakeem seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.338/2025,
registered at P.S. Madina Colony for offence under Sections 406, 420, PPC,
after rejection of their bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,
Karachi West vide order dated 08.11.2025.
Brief
facts of the prosecution case are that On 11.04.2025, complainant was contacted
by Mujahid Hakeem, stating that his relatives are coming from Islamabad, they need
Rivo vehicle on rent for one month. He arranged such vehicle from his friend
Zubair who is doing business of Rent a Car and handed over RIVO Vehicle
No.KW-7633 to Mujahid on rent for one month. After passing one month Zubair demanded
the vehicle. Applicant contacted multiple times to Mujahid Hakeem but failed. On
20.05.2025, Mujahid Hakeem attended call and stated that vehicle was handed
over to his Cousin Yaqoob by him, who took the said vehicle to Islamabad, such
situated was informed to owner Zubair. After that complainant reached at Islamabad
along with Mujahid Hakeem, vehicle owner Zubair, Niaz and Ashfaq Tanoli, where
the vehicle was searched and recovered from one person Naeem. On enquiry, Nacem
disclosed that said vehicle was purchased by him from one Shahid, which was sold
to him by Mujahid’s cousin, namely, Yaqoob for Rs.73,00,000/-. On 16.07.2025,
real Owner of RIVO KW-7633, namely, Niaz paid RS.41,50,000/- and obtained the said
Vehicle and was brought to Karachi, whereas, rent of the vehicle accumulated to
Rs.740,000/- is to be paid by Mujahid, which Mujahid failed to pay. Hence the
subject FIR.
Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC; that subject vehicle has been handed over to its owner
Niaz; that case of the applicant/accused requires further inquiry in terms of
Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
On the
other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by complainant, who is present in person,
opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR;
that the applicant/accused obtained the vehicle on rent and sold out the same
in Islamabad, which was latter on recovered after payment of Rs.41,50,000/- to
the buyer; that he has not joined the investigation after grant of interim pre-arrest
bail to him by this Court, therefore, he is he is not entitled for grant
of pre-arrest bail.
Heard
learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned A.P.G., complainant in
person and perused the material available on record.
No
doubt, the alleged offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause
of Section 497, Cr.PC and rule in such case is bail and its refusal is an
exception. This case comes within the ambit of exception cases for the reason
that applicant along with his companions involved in cheating with dishonest
intention and they are trying for layering the offence in order to make it complicated.
In the alleged offence, applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR with specific
role that he obtained the vehicle on rent and sold out at the same at Islamabad
and after payment of huge amount of Rs.41,50,000/- the vehicle was brought back
to Karachi by its owner Niaz. IO present in Court submits that after getting
interim pre-arrest bail applicant/accused has never joined the investigation.
This aspect is sufficient to recall his interim pre-arrest bail. Therefore,
instant criminal bail application is hereby dismissed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant
by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 is hereby recalled.
The
observations made herein above are tentative in nature, the same would not
prejudice the case of either party at trial.
Both
the captioned criminal bail applications are accordingly disposed of.
J U D G E
Gusher/PS