ADEEL SHABAN HIRANI vs The STATE
This bail application was filed by the accused, Adeel Shaban Hirani, seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following the dismissal of his application by the trial court. The accused was charged under Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing dishonoured cheques in connection with an investment agreement. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations of habitual fraud and the issuance of cheques from a closed account. The court observed that the accused did not deny issuing the cheques or the underlying agreement. Furthermore, the record indicated the accused had absconded for a significant period following the FIR and was allegedly involved in similar fraudulent activities against multiple parties, as evidenced by external documentation. The court held that the accused was not entitled to bail, concluding that the circumstances demonstrated a pattern of deceitful conduct. The principle laid down is that where an accused is shown to be a habitual offender in issuing dishonoured cheques and has evaded arrest, the discretion to grant bail should not be exercised in their favour.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when they have issued cheques from a closed account and have a history of similar fraudulent conduct?
- Does the act of absconding after the registration of an FIR impact the court's discretion in granting bail?
- Can the court consider evidence of an accused's habitual criminal conduct when deciding a bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MRS. KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, J.---On dismissal of Bail Application No, 1137/2017, by the trial Court, vide order dated 26.10.2017, the applicant Adeel Shaban Hirani has approached this Court, by filing instant bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C., for post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 63/2016, under sections 489-F, 420, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Taimuria, Karachi.
2. Story of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant Syed Anasuddin lodged FIR on 18.03.2016 at about 1245 hours and alleged therein that he does private job in Jadeed ul Islam Secondary School, Orangi Town, Karachi as teacher. On 10.05.2015 he entered into an agreement of investment with Khurram Shaban Hirani of Al-Muslim Petroleum Services and invested an amount of Rs, 7,00,000/-- against the monthly profit but after payment of profit for two months he did not pay any profit. His mother namely Mst. Aman Begum daughter of Mirza Ahmed Baig also invested the amount of Rs, 1,08,000/- in Al-Muslim Petroleum but she has also not received any profit upon above amount. After that Adeel Shaban gave him two cheques bearing No, 10416272 amounting to Rs, 4,00,000/-dated 15.02.2016 of Bank Al-Habib Ltd., Bufferzone Branch, Karachi and 10416273 amounting to Rs, 3,70,000/- dated 25.02.2016 of Bank Al-Habib Ltd., Bufferzone Branch, Karachi. After that when he presented the above cheques then the same were bounced, due to which he filed petition bearing No, 219/2016 before the Hon'ble H-Additional Sessions Judge Karachi Central and now he has come for report after obtaining order.
3, Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that admittedly, there was an agreement between the parties on the basis of running business of investment, made by the complainant and his mother in the business of accused, on the basis of monthly profit. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has also admitted that cheques were issued by the applicant/accused in the name of the complainant and his mother, which were bounced but infact by mistake he has issued these cheques related with his account, which had already been closed by him. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has pointed out that the complainant has lodged this FIR with the delay of one month for which he has given no explanation, therefore, the matter requires further inquiry.
On the last learned counsel for the applicant/accused has prayed for release of the applicant/accused on bail, as according to him he is in jail since October 2016 and he is ready to furnish surety against his release, if granted by this Court. He relied upon the case law reported in 2011 SCM R 1708 SC (Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others and 2009 SCM R 1488 SC (Zafar lqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others.
4. Learned D.P.G. has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant/accused and his brother are habitual to issue these types of cheques of the same account, which he has already closed, in this regard learned counsel for the complainant, who was assisting the learned D.P.G. produced several cheques issued by the applicant/accused to the several persons and according to him these cheques were bounced. He has also produced the pamphlet of Jammait-ul-Muslimeen, which shows that the applicant/accused and his brothers are indulged in the business of fraud, therefore, through this pamphlet they have warranted the people to be careful while dealing business with the applicant/accused and his brothers. Lastly, he prayed for rejection of bail application of the applicant/accused.
5. After hearing arguments and perusal of record it reveals that FIR of the complainant was lodged on 18.03.2016 on direction of learned ADD-II, Karachi Central under petition No,. 219/2016, filed by the complainant under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., while the incident was happened between 15.02.2016 to 25.02.2016. Admittedly the accused Adeel Shaban Hirani has issued two cheques to the complainant for the sum of Rs, 4,00,000/- and Rs, 3,70,000/-. These two cheques were presented in Bank Al-Habib Ltd, Bufferzone Branch, Karachi on the same day of its issuance but both cheques were bounced with endorsement that "Account closed". The applicant/accused neither denied issuance of these cheques nor execution of the agreement between them. After lodging FIR the applicant/accused become fugitive of law and was arrested on 16.10.2017 after lapse of considerable time. Learned DPG has pointed out while arguing that applicant/accused has issued number of cheques to several persons which, were also bounced and he is habitual for issuance these 'type of cheques. He has also produced a pamphlet issued by Jamat-ulMuslimeen wherein the conduct of applicant/accused and his brothers is mentioned. According to which they are habitual to commit fraud and usurp lacs of rupees of several persons. Since applicant/accused has concealed himself in order to avoid his arrest for. a long time and deliberately issued cheques of such account which he was already closed. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case law of Zafar lqbal v. Muhammad Anwar reported in 2009 SCM R 1488. Facts of this citation are different from the facts of present case.
6. Whatever mentioned above, I reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.
7. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.
Above are the reasons of short order dated 14.02.2018.
Cited by 1 case
- Anees Ahmad s/o Mian Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Akram 2019 SC AJK 73