ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.921 of 2010. _____________________________________________________
Date Order with signature of Judge
For hearing
06.10.2010.
Mr. Farooq Rashid, Advocate for the Applicant
Ms. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, A.P.G.
-----------
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge (East) Karachi, whereby the bail application of the present applicant/accused was dismissed, the applicant/accused has preferred the instant bail application before this Court.
Brief facts for the purposes of disposal of the instant bail application, and the prosecution story as stated in the F.I.R are that complainant ASI Haroon Dad lodged FIR at P.S CID Sindh Karachi stating therein that he was busy in patrolling in the area and during patrolling reached inside city Gulshan-e-Iqbal received spy information that three culprits who are indulged in sale and purchase of plots on the basis of forged documents by way of cheating and they are in dealing of forged and fabricated documents and files of plots by blackmailing them are available near Karim Plaza. On this information they reached at the pointed place at main university road opposite Karim Plaza, Civic Centre and found that three persons were available there. On seeing the mobile two persons made their escape good after throwing two polythene bags while the 3rd was apprehended who disclosed his name as Sher Muhammad and disclosed the names of absconding accused as Farooq son of Afzal Jabbar and Umar Memon. They recovered forged seals of different banks, departments, KDA possession order forms etc etc. They brought the accused and case property at PS and lodged the FIR of this case, hence present bail application.
The applicant/accused has been arrested in the instant crime and challan has been submitted in the trial Court on 15.7.2010.
It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant crime by the police as there is no private complainant to support the allegation as contained in the F.I.R. Per learned counsel, there is no private mashir of the alleged recovery and all the P.Ws are police officials. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a Real Estate Broker and has no previous history nor has ever cheated any one or committed any perjury as alleged by the prosecution. Per learned counsel, the alleged recovery of several stamps from the possession of the applicant/accused which is denied, does not constitute the offences as mentioned in the F.I.R., moreover, in the absence of any complainant who could have possibly been defrauded or cheated at the hands of the applicant/accused, none of the charges against the applicant/accused can be established by the prosecution. Per learned counsel, on bare perusal of the contents of F.I.R, it appears to be a seriously doubtful case which requires further inquiry into the matter hence the applicant/accused is entitled to concession of bail. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case law:-
1. Ishtiaq Ahmad Raza v. Ghazanfar Ali, S.I/F.I.A, Islamabad (P.L.D 2004 Lahore 767)
2. Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (P.L.D 1995 SC 34)
3 Iftikhar Ali v. The State (P.L.D 199 SD 491)
Conversely, the learned A.P.G has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the recovery has been affected from the applicant/accused, which shows that there is sufficient material to connect him with the instant crime. Learned A.P.G further submitted that the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G and perused the record. On tentative assessment of the record, it appears that there is no private complainant upon whose complaint the instant F.I.R has been registered, nor any private person has been shown. On tentative assessment of record it appears that the ingredients of the sections mentioned in the FIR are not fully attracted, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be termed as free from doubt and requires further inquiry into the matter.
In view of hereinabove, I am of the view that the applicant/accused has made out a case for concession of bail. Accordingly, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and trial court shall not be prejudiced by any such observations and shall decide the case strictly on merits keeping in view of the evidence available on record.
J U D G E