IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.1401 of 2025
[ Muhammad Shoaib son of Qasim Ahmed versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
02.03.2026
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, APG &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP a/w Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, advocate for
complainant
ASI Abdul Wali of PS Clifton,
Karachi
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Muhammad Shoaib son of Qasim Ahmed seeks pre-arrest
bail in FIR No.319/2024, registered at P.S. Clifton, Karachi South for offence
under section 489-F, PPC, after rejection of her bail plea by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi South vide order dated 24.05.2025.
Brief
facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR are that complainant’s father
entered into an agreement for sale of office located on I.I. Chundrigar Road
with Shoaib son of Qasim for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-, in pursuance
whereof Shoaib and his associate made partial payment of Rs.39,50,000/-through
bank transfers and cash on different dates. For remaining sale consideration of
Rs.40,50,000/-, he handed over Cheque No.A50360956, drawn on Meezan Bank in complainant’s
name, which on presentation was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, hence
the subject FIR.
Record
reflects that counsel for applicant remained absent on last four dates of
hearings viz. 05.12.2025, 23.12.2025, 20.01.2026 and 10.02.2026, even today he
is called absent.
Applicant
submits that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case due
to mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that FIR has been managed by the
complainant and the same complainant has registered five other FIRs against
him; that he has been convicted in one FIR case and thereafter he was
acquitted; that alleged does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC. He finally prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.
On the
other hand, learned counsel for complainant has filed statement, which reveals
that applicant is involved in seven FIRs and out of 7 FIRs in two cases he was
convicted by the competent Court of law; that he is habitual offender and use
to cheat/loot the innocent persons; that there is no mala fide on the part of
the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant in the instant case, which
is based on documentary evidence. Learned A.P.G. adopted the same arguments
advanced by learned counsel for complainant and opposed for grant of bail.
Heard applicant in person, learned A.P.G., learned
counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
Counsel for complainant has placed on record copies of
7 FIRs, registered against the present applicant, out of 7 FIRs he has been
convicted in two FIR cases. It appears that he is habitual offender and is
previously convicted, who loses some normal rights. No mala fide has been established
by the applicant against the complainant to falsely implicate him in this case,
which is based on documentary evidence, which is a pre-requisite condition for
grant for pre-arrest bail as held by the apex Court in the cases of Gulshan Ali
Solangi versus The State (2020 SCMR 249) and Abdul Aziz Memon versus the state
(2020 SCMR 313). No case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made. Therefore,
interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused by this vide order
dated 29.05.2025 is hereby recalled and the instant criminal bail application
is dismissed.
Observations made herein
above are tentative in nature, the same would not prejudice the case of either
party at trial.
The instant
criminal bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS