Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 145. In this matter between Cr.Bail 143/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Waheed Ali Abbasi (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Bail 143/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur CITATION: 2025 SHC SUK 1618 PARTIES: Waheed Ali Abbasi (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 08-MAY-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Haider 'Ada'(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 ORDERSHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR Crl.BailApplicationNo.S-143of2025 (WaheedAliAbbasiVs.TheState) DATEOFHEARING ORDERWITHSIGNATUREOFJUDGE Forhearingofbailapplication. ORDER. 08-05-2025. Mr.ShahMuhammadBangoAdvocateforapplicant. Mr.AftabHussainSharAdvocateforcomplainant. SyedSardarAliShahRizvi,AdditionalP.GfortheState. Ali Haider ‘Ada’,J;- ThroughthisBailapplication,theapplicant/accused, Waheed Ali son of Muhammad Hanif, by caste Abbasi, seeks the concession of pre-arrestbailinCrimeNo.06of2025,registeredunderSection489-F,PPCat PoliceStationGambat.PriortoapproachingthisCourt,theapplicanthadfileda pre-arrest bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat. However, the same was declined vide order dated 15-02-2025, hence the applicant has preferredthepresentapplicationbeforethisCourt. 2. Briefly, the facts of the instant case, as narrated in the FIR, are that the complainant allegedly purchased a plot from the applicant/accused in the presence of witnesses for a total consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-, which was fully paid by the complainant. Subsequently, on 01-09-2024, the applicant/accused purportedly expressed his intention to return the sale consideration and in that regard, issued two cheques: Cheque No. 2280665601 dated30-09-2024forRs.900,000/-andChequeNo.2280665602dated20-10- 2024 for Rs. 900,000/-. When these cheques were presented before the concerned bank, both were dishonored on 20-11-2024. Consequently, the complainantlodgedtheFIRon06-01-2025.

2 3. Learnedcounselfortheapplicant/accusedcontendsthattheFIRissilent regardingthedescriptionorparticularsoftheallegedplot.Hefurtherpointsout thatthereisanunexplaineddelayofnearlythreemonthsinlodgingtheFIRafter theissuanceoftheallegedcheques.Thecomplainanthasclaimedtohavepaida substantialamounttotheapplicant/accused;however,nodocumentaryevidence orreceipthasbeenproducedtocorroboratesuchpayment.Learnedcounselalso submitsthatMst.Sonia,thesisterofcomplainant,wasthelegallyweddedwifeof the applicant/accused, but due to matrimonial discord, the applicant divorced her,whereafterthechequesandotherbelongingsoftheapplicant/accusedwere allegedly misused. In support of this contention, the applicant has filed, under the cover of a statement, photocopies of the memo of Family Suit, Nikahnama andanapplicationunderSections22-A&22-BCr.P.C.Helastlysubmitsthatthe alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and the case calls for further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of Section497Cr.P.C.Therefore,theapplicantisentitledtotheconcessionofpre- arrestbail.Insupportofhiscontentions,relianceisplacedonthecase Kabeer AhmedBrohivstheState2025MLD364. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the confirmationofinterimpre-arrestbailonthegroundthatacognizableoffenceis clearlymadeoutfromthecontentsoftheFIR.Hearguesthatthereisnoelement ofmalafideonthepartofthecomplainantinimplicatingtheapplicant/accused, asthechequeswereadmittedlyissuedinlieuofasubstantialmonetaryamount. He further submits that the applicant/accused cannot claim the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a financial transaction of such magnitude. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has filed a photocopyoftheagreementpurportedlyexecutedbetweenthecomplainantand theapplicant/accusedregardingthesubjectplottransaction.Hehasalsoplaced reliance upon the cases reported as2021 P.Cr.L.J 886, 2002 SCMR 442, 2019

3 SCMR 1129,2021 SCMR 1466,2022 MLD 1065,2010 YLR 2764,2018 MLD 1521, 2009SCMR174 ,and 2022MLD1004 . 5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State contends that the instantcaseappearstobearesultofafamilydispute,astherecordreflectsthat the applicant had divorced the sister of the complainant on 06-02-2021, as per the Divorce Deed available on page 33. He contends that it seems improbable that,justafewdayslater,on09-02-2021,theapplicantwouldenterintoaplot sale agreement with the sister of his former wife, the complainant. It is further contendedbythelearnedcounselthattheInvestigatingOfficer,duringthecourse of investigation, found discrepancies in the signatures on the cheques in question. Upon verification from the concerned bank, it was revealed that the signatures on the dishonored cheques did not match those of the applicant/accused, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available onrecord. 7. The record reveals that the cheques were allegedly issued by the applicant/accused on 30-09-2024 and 20-10-2024, which were subsequently dishonored and returned by the Bank along with the memo on 20-11-2024. However, the FIR was lodged on 06-01-2025, after an unexplained and considerable delay of nearly three months, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution's case. Reliance is placed upon the case of Kabeer Ahmed Brohi v. The State(asmentioned supra)and Riaz Ahmed v.TheState2024YLR1144. 8. The statement filed by the Investigating Officer during the proceedings reveals that, upon verification of the cheques from the concerned Bank authorities, it came to light that the signatures on the cheques were different

4 from those of the applicant/accused, and the account had already been closed. These circumstances cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case. It is a well- establishedprincipleofcriminaljurisprudencethatthebenefitofdoubt,however slight,mustbeextendedtotheaccusedevenatthebailstage.Thisprinciplehas beenconsistentlyupheldbytheHonourableSupremeCourtin Salman Zahid v. The State through PG Sindh (2023 SCMR 1140), Fahad Hussain v. The State (2023 SCMR 364), Muhammad Eijaz v. The State (2022 SCMR1271),andMuhammadArshadv.TheState(2022SCMR1555). 9. Moreover, the record reflects that there existed prior family relations between the parties, as the applicant/accused was the former husband of Mst. Sonia, the sister of the complainant. It is noted that divorce between them was effected on 06-02-2021. In such circumstances, it appears highly unconvincing thattheapplicant,shortlyafterthedivorce,wouldhaveenteredintoaproperty transactionwiththecomplainant,asreflectedbythepurportedagreementdated 09-02-2021.Furthermore,theFIRallegesasubstantialmonetarytransaction,yet no documentary proof, such as receipts or verifiable banking records, has been providedtosubstantiatetheclaimofpayment.Thesefactorsraiseseriousdoubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s version. The scope of Section 489-F, PPC requires that the prosecution establish that the cheque in question was issuedtofulfilledobligationortorepayanoutstandingliability.However,inthe present case, this essential ingredient appears to be lacking, as the underlying transactionitselfisshroudedindoubt.Whenthefoundationalclaimofliabilityis uncertainorunsubstantiated,thepossibilityoffalseimplicationcannotberuled out. Reliance is placed upon the case ofAli Anwar Paracha v. The State (2024 SCMR 1596), Syed Muhammad Ali Shah v. The State (2024 MLD1363). 10. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C and the investigation has been completed. Furthermore, there is no

5 allegationorcomplaintthattheapplicanthasmisusedtheconcessionofinterim pre-arrestbail.Inthesecircumstances,theapplicantisentitledtotheconcession of bail. It is pertinent to note that the offence under Section 489-F PPC, which provides a maximum punishment of three years, thereby not attracting the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that whentheoffencedoesnotfallwithintheprohibitoryclause,thegrantofbailisa rule and refusal is an exception. In cases involving the issuance of cheques, the Honourable Superior Courts have consistently extended the concession of bail. Relianceinthisregardisplaceduponthejudgmentsrenderedin Muhammad Nasir Shafique vs The State (2021 SCMR 2092), Bilal Iqbal vs The State (2025 MLD 373), Abdul Saboor vs The State (2022 SCMR 592), and Riaz Jafar Natiq vs Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR1708), whereinbailwasgrantedinsimilarcircumstances. 11. Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthattheapplicant/accusedhas succeeded in making out a case falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The material available on record reflects that the case calls forfurtherinquiryintotheguiltoftheapplicant,therefore,theinstantpre-arrest bail application is allowed and the interim bail already granted to the applicant/accusedvideorderdated20-02-2025isherebyconfirmedonthesame termsandconditions. 12. Needless to mention, the observations made herein above are purely tentative in nature, confined to the disposal of the present bail application, and shallnotprejudiceorinfluencethelearnedTrialCourtindecidingthecaseonits merits. JUDGE

6 Ihsan/PS.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant