MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the issuance of a bounced cheque amounting to Rs.12,00,000 in connection with poultry business transactions, registered under Crime No.355 of 2010. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusation and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the offence involving bounced cheques is on the rise, causing severe disruption to business and requiring strict judicial handling, thereby declining leniency. The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the statements of witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supported the prosecution case and that such tendencies must be dealt with firmly.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged with issuing a bounced cheque in business transactions?
- Do statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supporting the prosecution case constitute sufficient ground to decline bail?
- How should courts deal with the increasing tendency of issuing false cheques affecting commercial activities?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.--- Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zahoor Shah, A.P.-G.
2. Prosecution case is that the applicant was having poultry business transaction with the complainant Shad Ali Khan. The applicant/ accused has issued a Cheque No.1160139 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.12,00,000 which was bounced. Ultimately the complainant lodged the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.355 of 2010 at Police Station Sharafi Goth, East Zone, Karachi. During trial the applicant/ accused was arrested. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, declined to grant bail to the applicant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.-G.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has not issued such Cheque of Rs.12,00,000 to the complainant but a sum of Rs.6,46,500 of the complainant is outstanding against the applicant and a false case has been registered against the applicant/accused. Admittedly during the course of investigation the witnesses have been examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. and supported the prosecution case. Nowadays the issue of false cheques is increasing day by day and now persons are suffering difficulties/agonies and their business due to bouncing of the false cheques, collapsed. Such tendency is to be dealt with iron hands. If frequently bail is granted in such cases, it means that a certificate is to be given to such person to commit such offences. The case has been challaned and is pending for trial. In such circumstances, applicant's case deserves no leniency. Hence I found no reason in this application which was dismissed by me by short order dated 28-2-2011 and these are the reasons for the same.
H.B.T./M-50/K Bail refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Zeeshan Mirza Versus State 2026 YLR 2139
- Mrs. RUKHSANA AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD EMAD and another 2013 YLR 1798
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State 2013 YLR 566, 2013 P.C.T.LR. 626