IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.3307 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
orders on office objection a/w reply as at “A”
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
11.03.2026
M/s Dr. M. Shahrukh Shahnawaz &
Ameeruddin, advocates for applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. a/w
SIP Suhrab Khan of PS Orangi Town
Ms. Aansia Ghouri & Sayeed
Hamid, advocates for complainant
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Muhammad Azam son of Abdul Ahad seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.466/2025,
registered at P.S. Orangi Town, Karachi for offence under Sections 406, 420,
506-B, 34, PPC, after dismissed of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Karachi West vide order dated 29.11.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the prosecution case are that complainant sold out his house to Noman
Ansari son of Akhtar Ansari against sale consideration of Rs.1,36,00,000/- and
due to non-availability of his bank account, Noman Ansari deposited balance
consideration Rs.1,20,00,000/- out of 1,36,00,000/- in the account of
complainant’s brother-in-law Muhammad Azam son of Abdul Ahad's bank, maintained
in Faysal Bank Orangi Town. He received sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- in
cash from Noman Ansari, while remaining sale consideration deposited in
Muhammad Azam's bank Account. On need, he demanded the said amount from
Muhammad Azam but he avoided. Complainant along with his family members went to
Muhammad Azam's home and demanded the amount to which he threatened to kill on
the showing pistol, his brother Muhammad Yousuf and son Muhammad Qasim also
threatened and refused to return the said amount. He called police, however, Muhammad
Azam and his son Qasim escaped away. While Muhammad Yousuf and Mudasar Ahmed were
handed over to police. Hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case; that there is family dispute between the
parties as the applicant is brother-in-law of complainant, his wife demanded
share from her brother (complainant), to which he annoyed and he lodged the
aforesaid FIR in order to drag the applicant in a false criminal case; that the
alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497,
Cr.PC, hence he is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other
hand, learned counsel for complainant submits that applicant has embezzled huge
amount of complainant by way of cheating and fraud, therefore, he is not
entitled for grant of extraordinary relief in the shape of pre-arrest bail.
Learned A.P.G. supports the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
complainant.
5. Applicant
is brother-in-law of complainant and it appears that there is family dispute
between the parties over sale and purchase of property, which can be resolved
through evidence. The
alleged offence does not come in the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.PC and rule in such cases is grant of bail and its refusal is an
exertion as held by the apex Court in the case of as held by apex Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer
versus State (PLD 2017 SC 733). Sufficient grounds are available on record, which make out the case of
applicant for further inquiry, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to
the applicant by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 is confirmed on the
same terms and conditions.
7. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature
the same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
8. The instant
criminal bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS