IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.08 of 2026
[ Tahsin Ahmed
son of Qamaruddin versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
26.02.2026
Mr. Atif Hanif
Kashmiri, advocate for applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
-------------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.- Applicant/accused Tahsin Ahmed son of Qamaruddin seeks
post-arrest bail in FIR No.549/2025, registered at P.S. Al-Falah for offence
under Section 489-F, PPC after rejection of his bail plea by learned Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate-IV, Karachi East. Thereafter, he filed bail
application before learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII Karachi East, the
same was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2025.
2. It
is alleged in FIR that applicant purchased animals of Rs.68,00,000/- and in
order to pay the outstanding amount has issued 7 cheques mentioned in the
aforesaid FIR, which on presentation were dishonoured, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant mainly contended that there is business transaction
between the applicant and complainant party regarding sale and purchase of
animals; that applicant issued 25 cheques of different amounts to the
complainant party as guarantee but the complainant party managed different FIRs
at different police stations against the applicant; that there is civil
litigation between the parties and the applicant has filed Civil Suit
No.11327/2025 against complainant Abdul Latif, which is pending before learned
Civil Judge-XII, Karachi East and in the said Suit stay is operating against
the said cheques; that alleged offence does not come within the ambit of
prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and the case of the applicant requires
further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC; that applicant is in custody
since his arrest and he is no more required for further investigation. He
finally prayed for grant of bail.
4. Mr.
Kashif Nazir Baloch, learned counsel for complainant, was present on the last
date of hearing and in his presence the matter was adjourned for today. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that today he informed him about fixation of case
but despite that he has chosen to remain absent, without any intimation.
5. On
the other hand, learned A.P.G. opposed for grant of bail on the ground that huge
amount of Rs.2,100,000/- is involved in this case and different FIRs at
different police stations have been registered against the applicant; that he
is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.P.G. and perused the
material available on record.
7. It
is a matter of record that cheques were dishonoured on 21.07.2025 whereas FIR
of the incident was registered on 04.10.2025 with a delay of about 2 ½ months, without plausible explanation.
Claim of the applicant is that he is doing business with the complainant party
and issued 25 cheques, however, due to some dispute on transaction, complainant
has managed this FIR, his father has also registered FIR against the applicant
wherein complainant of this case is eyewitness. Applicant has also approached
learned Civil Judge-XII, Karachi East and filed Civil Suit No.11327/2025
against issuance of 25 cheques, and learned trial Court, after hearing the
parties, has passed interim orders against the said cheques. Admittedly, alleged
offence does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497,
Cr.PC, and the rule in such cases is grant of bail and its refusal is an exception,
as held by the apex Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD
2017 SC 733). The applicant is in custody and he is no more required for
further investigation. No purpose would be served out to keep him in jail without
any progress. Record reflects that complainant party is not appearing before
learned trial Court and learned trial Court has issued BWs against the
complainant party to procure their attendance. All these aspects make out a
case for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant. Therefore, applicant above
named is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in
the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R.
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless
to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, the
same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
9.
Instant criminal bail application
is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS