IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 891 of 2010
Date Order with signature of Judges
For hearing
26.05.2014
Applicant present in person
Mr. Zahoor Shah, A.P.G.
-----------
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J: Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by order dated 25.8.2010 passed by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (East) in Bail Application No. 1253 of 2010 in Crime No.168/2010 under Section 420/465/468/471/472/473/476 PPC at P.S. CID Sindh Karachi, whereby the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 18.8.2010 was recalled, the applicant has sought pre-arrest bail from this Court under Section 498 Cr.P.C on the grounds that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime by the police officials against whom the applicant has lodged an FIR on the charges of demanding illegal gratification from the applicant.
2. On 30.8.2010, the applicant appeared before this Court alongwith his counsel, who contended that the police has involved the applicant in the instant crime in a counter blast to an FIR bearing No.08/2010, which was registered by Anti-Corruption Department on the complaint of the present applicant on 29.6.2010, wherein the police officials including the complainant of the instant FIR namely ASI Haroom Dad have been nominated. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no material whatsoever is available on record with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the alleged crime, who is being dragged in the instant proceedings by the police in retaliation to aforesaid FIR registered against them. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire incidence was also reported in the newspaper, whereas, the pre-arrest bail granted by the learned District and Sessions Judge Karachi East on 18.8.2010 to the applicant has been recalled vide impugned order 25.8.2010 without assigning any cogent reasons. It was further argued that the allegations contained in the FIR are false and frivolous and vague in nature and there is no likelihood of the conviction of the applicant in the instant crime. It has been further argued that the applicant has no previous criminal record and is a respectable citizen and if arrested in the instant crime, it will cause serious injury and harm to his reputation, whereas the applicant is willing to surrender before the trial Court to join the investigation provided that he may be granted pre-arrest bail. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 30.8.2010 subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court and since then the applicant is regularly attending this Court as well as the learned trial Court and has not violated the concession of bail granted by this Court.
3. The applicant present in Court submits that this pre-arrest bail is pending since 2010, whereafter he has been continuously attending this Court and has never misused the concession of bail and is also attending the trial Court regularly. It has been further stated by the applicant that no material or evidence has been produced by the prosecution against the applicant inspite of considerable lapse of time, whereas only charge was framed on 23.10.2010. It has been prayed by the applicant that the pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 30.8.2010 may be confirmed on similar terms.
4. Learned APG present in Court could not controvert the submission made by the applicant and in view of hereinabove facts did not oppose the confirmation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on similar terms.
5. Accordingly, in view of hereinabove facts, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 30.8.2010 on similar terms for the reasons that instant ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant is pending since 2010, whereas no material whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution which may require this Court to refuse the bail to the applicant at this stge. The applicant is admittedly attending this Court as well as the trial Court, whereas, no useful progress whatsoever has been made at the trial stage, the bail to the applicant cannot be declined as punishment, which is accordingly hereby confirmed in terms of order passed by this Court on 30.8.2010. However, the applicant shall continue to attend the trial Court regularly and in case he misuses the concession of bail granted by this Court, the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.
JUDGE