IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1769 of
2023
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
Present: Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
For
hearing of bail application
28.02.2024
Mr.
Irfan Ghani advocate along with applicant/accused
Mr. Ali Haider Saleem Addl. P.G
Mr. Asif advocate for the complainant
I.O/PI Muhammad Suhail PS SIU
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Applicant/accused
Irshad Ali Kalhoro seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 320/2023 for offences
under Sections 384/385/468/471/511/506-B PPC read with section 7 of ATA 1997
registered at P.S Manghopir Karachi. Prior to this applicant/accused applied
for bail before learned Judge, ATC-III Karachi, the same was rejected vide
order dated 12.07.2023.
2. Learned advocate for applicant/accused
mainly contended that there is delay of 04 days in lodging of the FIR for which
no plausible explanation has been furnished; that co-accused have already been
let off by the I.O on the same allegations; that there is dispute over plot in
which school is running; that Civil Suit No. 1743/2019 is pending before this
Court in which status-quo has been granted in favour of the applicant/accused; that
ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR are not made out; that
investigation is complete and applicant/accused is no more required. Serious
malafide on the part of the complainant is alleged. Lastly, it is submitted
that case of the applicant/accused requires further enquiry. In support of his
submission reliance has been placed upon the case of Zafar Nawaz vs. The State
and another (2023 SCMR 1977).
3. Addl. P.G assisted by the advocate for
the complainant submits that applicant/accused demanded bhatta of Rs.50,000/-
from the complainant and issued threats of dire consequences. It is further
submitted that applicant/accused is involved in number of cases; so far dispute
over plot on which school is constructed is concerned, it is submitted that complainant
is not party to that suit. Addl. P.G opposed the bail application.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the relevant record. It appears that incident had occurred
on 11.05.2023 at 11:00 a.m. and FIR was lodged on 15.05.2023 at 8:30 p.m. Delay
of 04 days in lodging of the FIR apparently has not been explained. We have
perused the contents of the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C statements of prosecution
witnesses, it appears that entire case is based upon demand of the
applicant/accused of Rs.50,000/- bhatta from the complainant and threats of
dire consequences. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that
Civil Suit No.1743/2019 with regard to same subject matter is pending before this
Court in which status quo has been granted. In view of civil litigation
possibility of false implication just to pressurize the applicant with ulterior
motive cannot be ruled out. Admittedly, co-accused have already been let off by
the I.O during investigation. So far registration of other criminal cases of
similar nature against the applicant/accused is concerned, mere registration of criminal cases
against an accused does not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits
he has a prima facie case. Rightly reliance is placed upon the case reported as
Zafar Nawaz vs. The State and another
(2023 SCMR 1977). Ingredients of Sections 384/385/468 PPC are yet to be
determined at trial. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail,
the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed upon
the case reported as Abdul Rehman vs.
The State and others (2023 SCMR 2081). I.O present before the Court submits
that investigation is complete and applicant/accused is no more required for
investigation. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated
above, we are of the view that prima facie, applicant/accused is entitled for
pre-arrest bail.
5. Taking
into consideration all the facts and circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail
already granted to the applicant/accused is hereby confirmed on the same terms
and conditions. However, trial Court is directed to conclude the case
expeditiously.
6. Needless,
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature
and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.
7. The
instant bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Wasim
ps