KASHIF SAEED vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Kashif Saeed, facing trial under sections 420 and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 305 of 2007 registered at Police Station Preedy, Karachi, following the dishonour of a cheque issued for the price of gold sold under a prior agreement. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the transaction, the delay in payment, and the maximum sentence attached to the offences. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, considering the facts and consistent with precedent in similar cases. The key principle laid down is that where a transaction involves delayed settlement and questions of fraud requiring trial adjudication, and bail has been granted in similar factual matrices, the accused may be admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under sections 420 and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the transaction involves a delayed settlement?
- Does a delay in payment under a prior agreement constitute fraud to be determined at trial rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- Applicant is facing trial for an offence under sections 420, 489-F, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R.
No,305 of 2007 Police Station Preedy, Karachi, seeks bail.
2. The applicant/accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs,2,00,000, on presentation was dishonoured. The cheque was issued for about 22-3-2007 against the price of gold alleged to have been sold under an agreement, dated 1-9-2005.
3. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.
4. Contention of learned counsel that the applicant has been confined in jail since 25-5-2007. That the transaction pertains to the agreement dated 1-9-2005 and cheque issued in the month of March, 2007 pertains to a much delayed settlement that the maximum period of sentence under section 489-F is three years.
5. Opposing the applicant, Mr. Qazi Wali Muhammad, learned counsel for the State, has contended that F.I.R. Lodged under section 420, P.P.C. Which is punishable for a period of seven years. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. He, therefore, opposes the applicant.
6. The transaction pertains to an agreement dated 1-9-2005 regarding sale of 154 grams of gold, however, there is no explanation as to why no payment was obtained for a period of about 18 months. The question of delay in payment constituted fraud is yet to be considered by the learned trial Court. Bail has been granted in similar cases of Ghulam Kadir v. The State 2007 YLR 1495 and Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1773 under similar facts.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount for the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.