Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ATIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Tufail H. EbrahimJam Asif Mehmood and Muhammad Wasif Riaz
2011 Y L R 1655
[Karachi]
Before Tufail H. Ebrahim, J
MUHAMMAD ATIF---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.1015 of 2010, decided on 28th September, 2010.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 498 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.498-F---Dishonouring of cheques---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Counsel of accused had alleged that cheques in question had not been issued by accused, but same were issued on behalf of the company which company was the tenant of father of the complainant; and in terms of the tenancy agreement advance post-dated cheques were issued---Counsel of accused further stated that cheques were not dishonoured on account of any dishonesty which could be verified from the concerned bank---Sufficient funds were available in the account of the company at the relevant time---Matter was a civil dispute between the parties as a case had been filed by the company against the father of the complainant for recovery of amount and damages and compensation---Counsel of accused had apprehension and fear that accused would be arrested by the Police and humiliated---Interim pre-arrest bail, was granted to accused, in circumstances. Jam Asif Mehmood and Muhammad Wasif Riaz for Applicant.
ORDER
TUFAIL H. EBRHAIM, J.---Granted. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions. Per learned counsel the alleged cheques have not been issued by the applicant/accused, but the same were issued on behalf of the Quice Food Industries Limited. Per learned counsel the said company was the tenant of father of the complainant and in terms of the tenancy agreement advance post dated cheques were issued. Per learned counsel the company had paid the outstanding K.E.S.C. bills on behalf of the landlord and also made major repairs and renovation of the demised rented premises on behalf of the landlord (father of the complainant). Per learned counsel the future monthly rent was to be adjusted towards such expenses and the cheques were to be returned. Per learned counsel the F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide and ulterior reasons as when the company requested the father of the complainant to settle the accounts and prior to which date the company had already requested its bankers to stop payment in view of the dispute between the parties. Per learned counsel the cheques were not dishonoured due to any dishonesty and it can be verified from the concerned bank that sufficient funds were available in the account of the company. Per learned counsel there is civil dispute between the parties and a case has been filed by the company against the father of the complainant for recovery of amount and damages and compensation. Per learned counsel there is apprehension and fear that the applicant/accused will be arrested by the police and he will be humiliated in the society. Without going into the merits of the case interim pre-arrest bail is granted to applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Issue notice to the Prosecutor General to come up on 5-10-2010 for confirmation or otherwise. The applicant/accused is directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. H.B.T./M-2/K Bail granted.