ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 969 of 2016
Applicant: Shams-ur-Rehman s/o. Firdous Khan,
through Mr. MaroofHussainHashimi, advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Abdullah Rajput, APG.
Complainant: Muhammad Tariq Gul through
Mr. FarhanKhaliq, advocate.
Date of hearing: 15.02.2017
Date of order: 15.02.2017
-----------------
O R D E R
Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:- After rejection of his earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No. 885 of 2016 by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, vide order dated 30.06.2016, applicant Shams-ur-Rehman son of Firdous Khan, through instant criminal bail application, has sought pre-arrest bail in crime/ F.I.R. No. 84 of 2016, registered at P.S. Tipu Sultan, under sections448, 420, 468, 471, 419, 406, 380, 506, 504, 34 P.P.C.
2. As per F.I.R., complainant Muhammad Tariq Gul son of MehrbanGul is citizen of America and on 15.07.2010, on the request of accused he gave his house bearing No. A/201, Block-8, KAECHS, admeasuring 200 sq. yds.to accused to reside, so also two cars bearing registration Nos. BBP-041 Toyota Xli White Colour, Model 2014 and AVX-027 Toyota Corolla Xli, White Colour, Model 2011 for running on rental basis and, thereafter, he went back to America. It is further alleged that in absence of the complainant, the accused stole aCheque bearing No.4276478 from his cheque book and got encashed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as well as he did not pay the rent of house. He came back to Pakistan on 11.03.2016 then he went to house of accused, where accused and his wife used abusive language and extended threats for killing.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with malice and for ulterior motive; that after the investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted challan under sections448, 420, 468, 471, 506, 504, 34 P.P.C, out of them, only section 468 is not bailable, however, the same is not cognizable and the same also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C.; that total nine witnesses have been cited in challan, out of them, six witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and one P.W. has been given up by the prosecution and there remains two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Ali son of Ilum Din and ASI Aasi to be examined, however, the private witness is not appearing before the Court for recording of his evidence and since the case is at the verge of conclusion, the applicant is entitled for the confirmation of his bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the alleged property was handed over to applicant under trust but he subsequently converted the same to his own use, therefore, it is fit case of criminal breach of trust. He has further contended that the principles for grant of pre-arrest bail are different from the principles governing grant of post arrest bail and since no malice or ulterior motive has been shown by the applicant/ accused against the complainant or even against the police, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief under section 498 Cr. P.C.
5. Learned APG while referring the case of REHMATULLAH V. THE STATE (2011 SCMR 1332), has recorded his no objection for the confirmation of bail on the ground that the case of the applicant /accused before the trial Court is at the verge of conclusion.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, complainant and learned APG and perused the material available on record.
7. It appears that after lodging the F.I.R. the investigation was conducted and police submitted the challan against the applicant/ accused, under sections 448, 420, 468, 471, 506, 504, 34 P.P.C, out of them, only one offence under Section 468 P.P.C. is non-bailable, however, the same is non-cognizable and the same also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C. There is no denial to the fact that the case of the applicant/ accused before the trial Court is at the verge of the conclusion. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the principles for the grant of pre-arrest bail are different from the principles governing grant of post arrest bail are concerned, suffice to say it that if the applicant/ accused is otherwise entitled for the bail, no useful purpose shall be served by putting him firstly behind bars and then allowing him post arrest bail. Hence following the dictum laid down in case of Rehmatullah (supra), the ad-interim bail, granted to applicant/ accused, vide order dated 01.07.2017 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
HANIF