ORDERSHEET

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

CriminalBail Application No.S-740 of 2019

 

Applicant/accused:          Nadeem Ahmed S/o Atta Muhammad Khaskheli Through Mr. Abdul Ghani Abro, Advocate

 

Complainant             :           Tahseen S/o Yaseen Memon

                                                Through Mr. Nusrat Ali Shar Baloch, Advocate

 

The State              :         Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG

 

Date of Hearing     :         14.02.2020

Date of announcement:    14.02.2020

 

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.-Through instant application, applicant/accused named above seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.240/2019, registered at Police Station B-Section, Khairpur for offences punishable under Sections 489-F & 506/2 CrPC. Applicant/accused approached for bail before arrest to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur, where he was granted interim pre-arrest bail, however, later on it  was declined and order for interim-pre-arrest bail was recalled, vide order dated 21.12.2019, hence applicant/accused approached this court for bail before arrest.

2.                 Briefly the facts of prosecution case are that on 05.12.2019 at 1400 hours, complainant Tahseen Memon lodged FIR at Police Station B-Section Khairpur, stating therein as under:-

“Complaint is that I am doing the business of houses, I had friendship with Nadeem Ahmed son ofAtta Muhammad Khaskheli, who was also doing the business of houses. On 05.06.2018, I along with my brother Muhammad Asif and friend Abdul Basit son of Waheedullah Phulpot were available at Hotel in Faizabad Colony near Luqman Phatak, meanwhile Nadeem Ahmed son of Atta Muhammad Khaskheli and his uncle Badaruddin Khaskheli came there, on coming they said that they have done the transaction of house, therefore they need Rs.14,50,000/- for some days, then they kept the Cheque 51301770 of dated 01.08.2019 of 14,50,000/- of NBP main branch Khaipur as surety, then I given the Rs.14,50,000/- in the presence of witnesses. On 01.08.2019, I appeared in National Bank of Pakistan main branch Khairpur for encash the Cheque but same was not encase, then I narrated such facts to Nadeem Ahmed but he kept me on hollow hopes, then on 04.09.2019 I got Memon on cheque, then I along with witnesses approached to Badaruddin Khaskheli at Ice Factory Luqman, where we demanded above amount from him, meanwhile he took pistol and issued threats to us while said you should go from here otherwise we will murder you, due to fear of weapons I returned back from there, thereafter, I filed application before competent Court of law, then got order of FIR, thereafter, I appeared at PS and lodged the above FIR.”

3.                Mr. Abdul Ghani Abro, learned counsel for applicant/accused contended that admittedly a cheque was issued by applicant/accused to complainant. He further submits that a private Faisla was held in between parties on 05.09.2019 and after that order was passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II/Justice of Peace, Khairpur for registration of FIR, where-after some amount has been given to the complainant. He also contended that punishment provided for offence under Section 489-F PPC is upto three years, which even does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. The main contention of learned counsel for applicant/accused is that FIR was registered with delay and that has also not been explained. According to applicant/accused no amount is outstanding against him. Learned counsel further submitted that charge has been framed by the learned trial Court and the case is now fixed for evidence, thus, in these circumstances, pre-arrest bail granted earlier, may be confirmed. He relied upon 2019 PCrLJ 295 and 2014 SCMR 1369.

4.                Mr. Nusrat Ali Shar Baloch, learned counsel for complainant submitted that no any private Faisla was held in between the parties, all the documents produced by the applicant/accused are fake and are not even signed by parties. He submits that delay has been explained in FIR as the FIR was registered after obtaining orders from the honourable Court. He relied upon 2014 YLR 372.

5.                Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, learned Deputy Prosecutor General contends that co-accused Badaruddin Khaskheli has been released by Investigating Officer as during investigation, he was found innocent. He further contends that delay has been explained properly and after obtaining orders from learned Justice of Peace, FIR was registered. He in support of his contentions has relied upon 2019 SCMR 1129.

6.              I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the contents of FIR, it appears that complainant gave an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- in cash but during investigation, he has not submitted any proof that wherefrom he got such amount and gave to applicant/accused. Complainant has failed to show any National Tax Number regarding his business, which he has even admitted in his FIR and before the Court. The copy of Faisla has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant/accused along with his application, which suggests that some monitor transaction in between the parties but such is to be decided by trial Court after recording the evidence. The offence for which, the applicant/accused is booked is punishable upto three years, same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497/2 CrPC. It is well settled principal of law that in cases covering under Section 497/2 CrPC, the bail is right of applicant/accused and refusal is exception.

7.              For the above stated reasons and the punishment provided for offence under Section 489-F PPC,the bail application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted toapplicant/accused vide order dated 31.12.2019 is hereby confirmed. Since the charge has already been framed by learned trial Court, thus, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the case within period of three months after receiving of this order.

8.              The titled Cr. Bail Application stands disposed in the above terms.

 

                                                                   ____________

                                                                   JUDGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.M/Steno