IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.918 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
orders on office objection
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
26.05.2025
Mr. Ghulam
Umar, advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
Complainant in person
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.—Applicant/accused Abdus Saboor Khan son of Imtiaz Ulfat seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.7/2025, registered at
P.S. Thatta for offence under section 489-F, 406,
PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Sessions Judge, Thatta vide order dated 29.03.2025.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in
impugned order are as under:
"I
reside at the above stated address and am engaged in the spice business. I am
acquainted with Danyal Abbasi
son of Muhammad Riaz Abbasi,
(resident of Gulshan-e-Iqbal
Karachi), (2) Abdul Saboor Khan son
of Imtiaz Ulfat Khan and Majid Ali son of Muhammad Hayat, (resident of Karachi Malir). They are my friends. They are associated with HW
Enterprise, a company dealing in the purchase and sale of vehicles. They
proposed an investment opportunity in a KIA Sportage
vehicle, promising that the profit would be shared equally and the investment
amount would be fully reimbursed. Based on this assurance, I invested Rs.7,500,000/- in their business in the presence of witnesses
Dodo son of Bahar and Asad Safdar, son of Muhammad Safdar. A
written agreement was executed and signed by all the parties. However, neither
my investment was returned nor did I receive any profit. Upon demanding my
money back, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.7,500,000/- from HW Enterprise (cheque
bearing No.10882494, dated 25.09.2024 drawn on of Bank Al-Habib,
North Nazimabad Branch. Karachi). However, when
deposited at Allied Bank, Thatta branch, the cheque was dishonored and a return memo was issued. Despite
multiple demands, the accused failed to return my investment and profit.
Consequently I filed an application before the Sessions Court and obtained an
order from the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta vide letter No.05 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025. Now I
have come to police station and complain that the said accused have defrauded
me by issuing a false cheque. An investigation is
requested."
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that there is unexplained delay of 2 ½ months in lodging of FIR; that
in fact dishonoured cheque
has not been issued by applicant and the said account was already closed before
the date of issuance of the subject cheque; otherwise
he has nothing to do with the complainant. He finally prayed for grant of bail.
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by
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 cheque of Rs.7,500,000/- in his favour,
which was dishonoured on presentation.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, complainant
in person and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
the incident as is evident from FIR is said to have taken place on 06.11.2024
whereas report thereof was lodged on 10.01.2025, after a delay of more than two
months and, that too, without furnishing any plausible explanation. Hon’ble apex Court in number of cases held delay in
lodgment of FIR to be fatal for prosecution case. Cheque in question is alleged
to have been issued by H.W. Enterprises and not by applicant, such aspect of
the case certainly calls for
further probe and it would be decided by learned trial Court after recording of
evidence during trial and at this juncture this factum requires further inquiry
into the guilt of applicant. Furthermore, offences with which the
applicant stands charged fall within non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. Prima facie, mere issuance of cheque
which is subsequently dishonoured does not constitute
an offence under Section 489-F, PPC, unless it is proved that the same was
issued with dishonest intention for payment of loan or discharging of any
obligation; all ingredients are required to be proved at trial. Reliance in
this behalf may well be made to the case of Nazir AHmed
alias Bhaga v. The State and others
(2022 SCMR 1467). All these circumstances, prima-facie, establish that
the case against applicant falls within the purview of Section 497(2) Cr.PC, entitling him to grant of bail on merits. Therefore,
applicant Abdus Saboor Khan
son of Imtiaz Ulfat is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) and
P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless to say, that the above observations are tentative
in nature, and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
8. Instant
criminal bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS