IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3609 of 2025
[ Zaheer-ul-Haq versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
12.03.2026
Mr. Tehseen Manzoor, advocate for applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, APG
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Baloch, advocate for complainant
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused Zaheer ul Haq son of Zahoor ul Haq seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.498/2025, registered at P.S. Sukhan, Karachi South for offence under section 489-F, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi vide order dated 13.12.2025.
2. The facts depicted in the impugned order are reproduced as under:
The following facts emerge from the FIR and accompanying record that the complainant is engaged in the business of supplying cattle feed and animal foodstuffs. In the year 2022, the complainant entered into a business arrangement with the present applicant/accused Zaheer ul Haq and invested Rs. 21,00,000/-. On 28.05.2023, the applicant allegedly took an additional amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the understanding that he would supply milk to the complainant's customers for six months and return the complainant's initial investment of Rs. 21,00,000/- within five weeks. An agreement was purportedly executed in the presence of witnesses to this effect. However, after the expiry of the stipulated five-week period, the applicant neither supplied milk nor returned the amount. The complainant made persistent demands for recovery of the entire sum of Rs. 51,00,000/-. In response, the applicant issued cheque No. 67929068 of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant, which was deposited on 11.01.2024 in the complainant's HBL Bank Account at Cattle Colony Branch, Karachi, but was dishonoured by the bank. Following further demands, the applicant issued two additional cheques: Cheque No. 67929072 of Rs. 17,00,000/- and Cheque No. 67929075 of Rs. 16,00,000/-, both drawn on UBL Bank, Shireen Jinnah Colony Branch, Karachi. These cheques were deposited by the complainant on 17.01.2025 in his HBL Bank Account at Cattle Colony Branch, Karachi, but were also dishonoured due to insufficient balance. After repeated dishonours, the applicant extended threats of dire consequences and refused to make payment. The complainant thereafter filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. before the concerned Additional District Judge at Malir, Karachi (Crl Misc Appl No. 3168/2025). Following the orders of the Court on that application, the complainant lodged the present FIR on 21.08.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that applicant has no any business transaction with the complainant and, in fact, there was a business of applicant and Imran-ur-Rehman, who has misused his cheques by planted complainant and managed a false FIR against him. In support of his contention he has relied on order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace whereby learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace issued direction to the concerned SHO to register FIR against said Imran-ur-Rehman and present complainant Muhammad Ashfaq and in compliance of said order FIR No.510/2025 was registered at P.S. Jackson for offence under Section 406, 420, PPC; that alleged offence does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and case of the applicant/accused calls for further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. He finally prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed for grant of bail on the ground that complainant sold cattle to the applicant and against such liability applicant had issued 3 cheques of Rs.4,800,000/-; that order on application under section 22-A&B, Cr.PC is a defence plea of the applicant, which is an afterthought as the FIR was registered on 21.08.2025 whereas he obtained order from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on 19.11.2025; 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, as such he is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief by way of pre-arrest bail.
6. Heard applicant in person, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
7. From tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that applicant has issued different cheques to the complainant against his business liability and same were dishonoured. Counsel for complainant has placed on record agreement between the applicant and complainant which reflects that he had issued cheques for fulfillment of his obligations, which constitute offence under Section 489-F, PPC. In an identical case apex Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail by observing in the case of Azhar Pervaiz Bukhari versus the State and another (2024 SCMR 1719) that:
8. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which cannot be granted unless person seeking it satisfies conditions specified under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and establishes existence of reasonable grounds leading to believe that there are in fact sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry. This court has discussed this aspect of case in a number of cases, reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1394), relevant portion wherefrom is reproduced as under:-
"Considerations for pre-arrest bail are totally different from that of post-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, whereas the post arrest bail is an ordinary relief. While seeking pre-arrest bail it is duty of accused to establish and prove mala fide on the part of the Investigating Agency or the complainant. Bail before arrest is meant to protect innocent citizens who have been involved in heinous offences with mala fide and ulterior motive."
9. It is a settled principle of law that relief of pre-arrest bail can only be granted to the accused if he establishes the mala fide on the part of complainant or the police. Reference may be made to the case of Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State (2020 SCMR 249) wherein it has been held that:-
"Grant of pre-arrest bail is a remedy rooted into equity; at a cost to hamper the investigation, this judicial protection is extended, solely to save the innocent from the horrors of abuse of process of law with a view to protect his dignity and honour. It cannot be granted in every run of the mill criminal case, particularly to the accused confronting prima facie charges structured upon material/evidence, warranting custody, that too, on the basis of positions/pleas, verification whereof, is consequent upon recording of evidence. Being in line with the law declared by this Court, view taken by the High Court, does not calls for interference. Petitions fail, leave refused.
Same view was taken by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Hasnain Haider versus the State (2021 SCMR 1466).
8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant registered FIR against Imran-ur-Rehman and complainant of this case is concerned, it appears to be an afterthought for the reason that instant FIR was registered on 21.08.2026 whereas applicant obtained order from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on 19.11.2025; it could be a defence plea and benefit of the same cannot be extended to applicant/accused at bail stage.
9. During pendency of instant criminal bail application, parties have agreed to settle their dispute from Milk Sellers Association but applicant deviated from his stance for settlement. 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 31.12.2025 is hereby recalled and the instant criminal bail application is dismissed.
10. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature, the same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
11. The instant criminal bail application is accordingly disposed of.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS