IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.2858 of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
12.03.2025
M/s Syed Jameel
Ahmed Shah & Fiaz Ahmed Abro,
advocates for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr. Shoukat
Ali Bhambhro, advocate for complainant
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Zulfiqar Ali son of Naseer Ahmed seeks
pre-arrest bail in FIR No.346/2024, registered
at P.S. Sachal,
District Malir Karachi for offence under section 489-F,
PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, South
Karachi vide order dated 28.11.2024.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that applicant obtained Rs.2,500,000/- from complainant
for business purposes, when such amount was demanded, applicant issued Cheque No.11191738 dated 24.07.2024 of Rs.2,500,000/- which,
on presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured
due to insufficiency of funds, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case due to personal grudge; that the subject cheque was not issued to complainant but the same was
issued to Majid Khan, who is his business partner and
said Majid Khan had handed over the subject cheque to complainant; that FIR has been lodged with an
unexplained delay of three months; that alleged offence does not fall within
the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC;
that prosecution story is doubtful and require further inquiry in terms of
Section 497(2), Cr.PC. He relied upon the cases of Noman Khaliq versus The State and
another (2023 SCMR 2122) and Abdul Rasheed versus The
State and another (2023 SCMR 1948).
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by counsel
for complainant, has opposed the bail to the applicant on the ground that applicant
is nominated in FIR; that in order to cheat the complainant he issued the
subject cheque of Rs.2,500,000/- in his favour, which was dishonoured on
presentation for insufficiency of funds. She further submits that applicant kept
the complainant on false hopes for making payment, therefore, he did not
register the FIR and after his refusal for making payment he lodged the FIR.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, counsel for
complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
the above referred cheque issued by the applicant/accused
to the complainant, the same was dishonoured on
presentation for want of funds. Per learned counsel for complainant, applicant
kept the complainant on false hopes for making payment, therefore, there is
delay in lodging of FIR. Usually, in money transaction cases, delay occurs in lodging
of FIR on the hope of settlement between the parties. However, delay in such
like cases is not fatal to the prosecution case.
7. Moreover,
the apex Court time and again has held that the mere fact that an offence does
not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.PC
would not mean that such an offence had become bailable.
The discretion still remains with the competent Court to consider whether a
person accused of such an offence does or does not deserve the grant of bail in
accordance with the established norms governing the exercise of such a power.
Reliance is placed on the cases of Afzaal Ahmed vs.
The State (2003 SCMR 573). Each case has to be
seen on its own facts and circumstances and concession of grant of bail cannot
be exercised in a way which can be termed as arbitrary, fanciful or perverse.
No mala fide or ulterior motive has been attributed on the part of the
complainant to falsely implicate the applicant/accused in this case. It has
also come on record that charge has been framed and complainant has been
examined by learned trial Court. Trial is in progress and is likely to be
concluded. Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a
period of three months, without granting adjournment on any flimsy ground to
either party. No case for grant of bail has been made out,
therefore, instant criminal bail application is dismissed. Reliance is placed on the case of Syed Hasnain Haider versus The State
(2021 SCMR 1466).
8. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
9. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS