Zakir Mir Versus State
Ali Baig, C.J .--- The instant bail petition under section 497 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner/ accused for grant of post arrest bail, in criminal case bearing FIR No. 251/2024 registered at Police Station City Gilgit for offences under sections 419, 420 and 506 P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case as per contents of the FIR are that complainant namely Muhammad Ilyas son of Sheikh Muhammad Yar lodged a complaint before the SHO Police Station City Gilgit against the petitioner/ accused stating therein that the petitioner/ accused went to the shop of complainant and purchased electrical wires etc fraudulently worth Rs.1228900 and handed over a cheque bearing No.61622765 valuing of Rs. 58000/- of Khyber Bank Jutial Branch to the complainant. The complainant when presented the said cheque in the concerned Bank, which was dishonoured.
3. On receipt of the complaint the concerned SHO registered the aforesaid FIR and arrested the present petitioner/ accused. After completion of investigation of the case the SHO has committed the accused/present petitioner to judicial custody/lock-up at Gilgit.
4. The present petitioner/accused had filed post arrest bail applications before the learned subordinate Courts. The learned Courts below after hearing the arguments on behalf of both the parties have dismissed the bail applications of the present petitioner/ accused vide judgments/ orders dated 22-02-2025 and 15-03-2025 respectively hence, the instant petition before this Court seeking post arrest bail on the grounds detailed in the petition.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner /accused contended that the petitioner/ accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that there is more than one month delay in lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that sections 420 and 506 P.P.C are bailable while section 419 P.P.C does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that it is a purely civil nature case and complainant has also filed a civil suit for recovery of disputed amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that there is no private witnesses of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that the petitioner/accused is behind the bars for more than last 04 months and Challan of the case has not yet been submitted before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that investigation of the case has been completed and the petitioner/ accused is no more required for further investigation, hence, the petitioner/ accused is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly submitted that the instant petition may be accepted and the petitioner/ accused be released on bail to meet the ends of justice. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied on the following case laws:-
(i) 2005 MLD 173
(ii) 2020 SCMR 1258
(iii) 2024 SCMR 1596
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and contended that the offences reflected in the FIR are fully attracted to the petitioner's case. The learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the present petitioner is habitual offender and is involved in so many other criminal cases of similar nature. The learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the offences are non bailable, therefore, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail. The learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the FIR and the police have recovered articles on his leading and pointation from different shops of City Gilgit. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant lastly submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly refused the bail petitions of the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has failed to substantiate the grounds mentioned in the petition. Hence, the petition in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice. In support of their arguments, the learned DAG and counsel for the complainant relied on the following case laws:-
(i) 2021 MLD 1327
(ii) 2020 YLR 1237
(iii) 2019 PCr.LJ Note 25
(iv) 2022 MLD 768
(V) 2008 SCMR 807
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
8. From perusal of record it transpires that besides the instant case more than 10 other similar nature cases have been registered against the present petitioner/ accused vide different FIRS, which have been produced before this Court during arguments by the prosecution hence, record suggests that the petitioner is habitual offender as many cases of cheating and fraud have been registered against him. Some incriminating material / articles have been recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner/ accused from different shops of Gilgit City. The deceptive behavior of the petitioner depriving the innocent and poor people from their amounts is a factor which cannot be ignored lightly. The offence committed by the petitioner/ accused is not only heinous but also an offence against humanity and society as the petitioner/ accused has deceived many innocent persons. From tentative assessment of available record it reveals that there exists a prima-facie case against the petitioner/ accused therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage.
9. Although the offences for which the petitioner/accused has been charged does not fall clause of section within the ambit of prohibitory 497 Cr.P.C but even then the petitioner/ accused is not entitled for concession of bail as a matter of right. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2008 SCMR 807.
10. For what has been discussed above, I see no substance in this petition as such the same is dismissed. File.
JK/6/GB Petition dismissed.