Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Omar SialSaathi M. Ishaq, Serwet Israr and Sana-ur-Rehman Lodhi
2023 P Cr. L J Note 52 [Sindh] Before Omar Sial, J MUHAMMAD SALEEM---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 1558 of 2020, decided on 2nd March, 2021. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Delayed FIR---Scope---Accused sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under S. 489-F, P.P.C.---First Information Report was lodged with a substantial delay, which at the moment remained unexplained---Cheques allegedly issued were dated in the years 2018 and 2019, which too were presented at the Bank counters for encashment after a substantially long time---No cogent explanation was provided---Nexus of the accused with the transaction was yet to be proved---No suit for recovery of money was filed by the complainant and upon a tentative assessment it appeared that criminal law might have been put into motion as an arm twisting tactic---Mala fide could not be conclusively ruled out at preliminary stage---Offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C., though not bailable carried a potential sentence of 3 years and hence fell within the non-prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted.
Saathi M. Ishaq, Serwet Israr and Sana-ur-Rehman Lodhi for Applicant. Hussain Bux Baloch, Additional P.G. for the State. Abbad-ul-Hussnain for the Complainant. JUDGMENT OMAR SIAL, J.---Muhammad Saleem has sought pre-arrest bail in crime number 798 of 2020 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at the Kharadar police station in Karachi. Earlier, his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South. 2. Background to the case is that Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi lodged the aforementioned FIR on 30-9-2020 reporting an offence that had occurred on 15.11.2018. Qureshi recorded that he drove a taxi and that 6 years ago he had entered into a transaction with the applicant's brother Nasir. The transaction did not go through so Qureshi demanded his money back. The applicant, allegedly on behalf of Nasir, issued 3 cheques, which cheques bounced upon presentation. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the applicant as well as the complainant and the learned Additional P.G. My observations are as follows. 4. There is a substantial delay in the lodging of the FIR which at the moment remains unexplained. Further, the cheques allegedly issued are dated in the years 2018 and 2019, which too were presented at the bank counters for encashment after a substantially long time. Once again, no cogent explanation has been provided. The nexus of the applicant with the transaction is yet to be proved. The learned counsel for the complainant has been unable to produce the agreement that the parties entered into for the purchase of the property. It appears that a settlement agreement may have been entered into between the parties however the circumstances in which the same was entered into and how that process unfolded still requires to be proved. No suit for recovery of money has been filed by the complainant and upon a tentative assessment it appears that criminal law may have been put into motion as an arm twisting tactic. Keeping the prima facie animosity between the parties in mind, mala fide cannot be conclusively ruled out at this preliminary stage. An offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. though not bailable carries a potential sentence of 3 years and hence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There are no exceptional or extraordinary grounds to decline bail on this account. 5. Above are the reasons for the short order dated 22-2-2021. SA/M-22/Sindh Bail granted.