Syed Adnan Zafar vs The State

ORDER

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicant booked in FIR No. 107/ 2022 under sections 420/468/406/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station New Karachi Industrial Area, Karachi, was admitted to pre- arrest bail vide order dated 30.03.2022 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation of said pre- arrest bail or otherwise.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the applicant is regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; the FIR has been lodged with the delay of one year and that no agreement has been signed by the applicant. Lastly learned counsel prayed that the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the applicant has not denied the execution of agreement in respect of the transaction and also not filed any suit for cancellation of said agreement. He further submitted that there is sufficient material which connects the applicant with the crime hence opposed the confirmation. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh adopted the above arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel It is an admitted fact that the FIR has been lodged with the unexplained delay of one year and no iota of evidence is available against the applicant. The case of prosecution hinges upon the agreement original of which is not available with the prosecution; the applicant has denied execution of any such agreement with the complainant and stated that he never signed any such agreement with the complainant. The execution/ signing the agreement between the parties requires further enquiry which will the proved after the evidence is recorded at the trial. This is a pre-arrest bail application. No compliant of misuse of concession of bail or tempering the record has been pointed out. The applicant is regularly appearing in the case before this court as well as trial court.

6. There is no denial to this fact that the superior courts of the country since long have issued guidelines wherein the details of the considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are highlighted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while handing down a judgment reported as Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360) although found that the bail granting order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law but yet restrained to interfere in such order on the ground that there was nothing to show that the accused had misused the concession of bail. In a recent judgment reported as Samiullah v. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the following principles for cancellation/ recalling of bail:- i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner. iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses. iv) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court. v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence. vi) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation which tends to establish guilt of the accused.

7. When confronted, the learned counsel for the complainant so also learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh to show from the record as to whether the applicant had violated any of the above- said conditions on the basis of which their bail can be cancelled, she had no answer.

8. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230.

9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant vide order dated 30.03.2022 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The trial court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible after hearing both the parties and such compliance report be submitted before this court. The instant Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.