KASHIF KHAN Versus State

ORDER

RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO, J.--- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 19.02.2015, passed by the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East in Crime No. 102 of 2014, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. at Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, where the bail before arrest of the applicant/ accused was dismissed. Hence this bail application.

2. Today the matter is being heard for confirmation or otherwise.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2014 complainant purchased a vehicle bearing No. Hi-Axe Surf, Model 1995, Engine No.219207291, Chassis No. LN-1300001422, which is registered at Dera Ismail Khan. The deal of sale of said vehicle was made at Sindh Motor Show Room situated at New M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, with Tajuddin and Waqar and its owner against the total sale consideration of Rs.4,70,000/-, which was paid. On 01.03.2014 the said vehicle was taken into custody by the Custom Intelligence Officials at Sadiqabad and after verification of documents, found that NOC of Peshawar Custom is fake, there, the vehicle was taken into custody.

4. Learned counsel for applicant/ accused contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present crime and there is inordinate delay of about two months in lodging of FIR which creates serious doubt in the prosecution story. Learned counsel contended that the applicant has neither cheated the complainant nor committed forgery for the purpose of cheating nor had knowledge that the document viz. NOC of the vehicle was forged which the applicant had used as genuine. Learned counsel contended that it is quite strange that complainant remained silent for two months and never approached the police and such unexplained silence by itself is sufficient to show that FIR is false, fabricated and manipulated in order to achieve certain evil design. Learned counsel contended that offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bail-able and triable by the Court of First Class Magistrate, who is competent only to award punishment up to three year, thus the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is rule and rejection is exception. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the cases of Jamaluddin @ Zubair Khan v. The State (2012 SCMR 573), Shan v. The State (2015 PCr.LJ 747), Muhammad Hassan v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 572), Muhammad Khalid v. The State (2010 MLD 63) and Khan alias Khan Muhammad Mangrio and 2 others v. The State (2010 MLD 311.

5. Conversely, learned D.P.G. has opposed the confirmation of bail and prayed that the bail application may dismissed on the ground that the applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR and he has committed cheating by presenting fake NOC, as such, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant/accused as well as learned D.P.G. and perused the material available on record.

7. The perusal of the case papers shows that the alleged incident is shown to have taken place 04.02.2014 and the above FIR was registered on 02.04.2014 and due to such an inordinate delay, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out, the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., as sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bail-able, whereas, section 468 is punishable up to seven years, thus the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is rule and rejection is exception.

8. The applicant/accused is on ad interim pre-arrest bail and is also no more required by the police for investigation and attending this Court as well as trial Court, regularly. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, a case for grant of bail to the applicant/ accused has been made out. Reference can be made upon the cases of Muhammad Nauman Hanif v. The State and another (2016 SCMR 1399), Sajid alias Chitta v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2089) and Haibat Khan v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2176).

9. For the foregoing reasons and dictum laid down (supra), I am of the view that the applicant/accused, namely, Kashif Khan son of Badshah Deen has made out a case for confirmation of bail. Accordingly, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the above named applicant on 06.03.2015 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

JK/K-3/Sindh Pre-arrest Bail confirmed.