GOHARULLAH S/O INAYATULLAH (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

s (<i'tnio"l-ts"rL Rpuc"*''""u b'1'1 | r"e's'

CERTIFICAIE OF'THE COURT IN REGARIJ ]O REPOI{TING

A[lticnntz- Gohar uLuqVr Af o Ino"X"t tLUah .--

Q*1""a.^L.- \h" 8t"t.

stND HtC ( (Jr. l( I k.\R.\( l

comoosi r ron o r Bencr,. S B : - T.uti o Ttaa*t'^ 8 *Lt"^"' l)ates of lrcaring r,r Xgob-aot( Dccided on r,r \5-o''l- Io1( (at .ludunrcnl oppR)\cd l()r t.'qr R t'po rt i rrg.

JU

(.F]ItIlIICATI

Cenilied tlrat the jr-rdgrncnt +,'Order is hased upon or cnunciatcs it principle of law'/ decidcs a queslioD ol l \\ $ hich is ol tlrsl iNpr{ssion/ distinguishes/over-rules/re\ crscs/explains a prer ior.rs rlccisirrn

$N{(N

rSllike oul uhiche\,er is not applicable

NOTE: - (i) This slip is only to hc uscd \vhen sotlre aclion is Lo be lalen

(ii)ll'the slip is: used. lhe Reader nrusl allach it lo the lop ol' lh!' llrst puBc ol tlrc.iudgrncnl.

(iii)Reader must asli. thc ludgc \!rilinB lhe lud8nlent \ llcther the Judgnrelrt is upplor crl lhr rcpo(ing

(i1) Those directions shich rrr nol h) h!'us.(i shot'ld hc tl!'lelr'(l SCP.- Kar -- L (iii) 1.159--5.000-''6'sl- - - l-.S.S

a

IIf .TIIE HIGE

AT KARACIII

zozf aril Agplicatiotr ri

I

'Jrifr-tu}*, Oo-hsr t ah S/o tnayet UllEh Ea{rat

I

MusliE', adult R/o Housc No.389, i triltt tr, , ,..- i unlt No.g, L.tiI6ba4 HydeEbad. I t53o At Prcscnt Kirachi.,....,,...,.......,.,,,.. Applid$t/ Accused, Vcrg,r$

Thc State .R6pondcDtr

FIR No. 3a3/2o20 u/s 489-F,420/34 PPC P.S. Pr€dy I(srachl

BAIL U/6 498 Cr.P,C,

a

a

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH -COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Cyiminal Bail Apptication No.674 of 2025

Date . Order with Sig.rature of Judge

Gohar Ullafr. lhrouoh [/]/s Zahid AXlUqt!9-C-AbdU Mgieed Lhoso. Advocates.

Respondenl The Staie throuqh SerdarA liSolanoi D.P G Complalnant Zu,tioar At,red lhrovql Mr Abbadul !'asnarn Advocale

Date of h€eing 25.06.2045

Dae of ordet 15.07.2025

ORDEII

Tasneem Sullana. J:- Through tnrs Bail Appllcalion applcant namely. Gohar Ullahi has sought pre'arresl biril rn FIR No 343/2020 under Seclions 489-F, 420 and 34 PPC regislerec at Preedy Polrce Stalion Karachr Earller, baiL application of the applrcrnl was turned dowrr by thc learned District and Sessions Judga, Kara.h, South, vlde order dated 05 03 2022 whereafter lhe applicaot was adm(led to inlerim pre-arresl bail by thls Court vide order dated 16.01.2022 pa ssed in Cr. Bail Applicalion No 515 of 2022. However, later as the'applir:ant remaintd absent, the said barl application was d smissed for lon-prosecution vide order dated 12.09.2022. Subsequ;ntly, the atplcani moved another bail application bearing No.204'1 of 2022 and was at ain admitted to inlerlm pre'arresl bail vide order dateC 19 10.2A22. Thrs t.ail applicat on was dismisscd as nol presscd vrde order dated 01j22012 as the applicant was coivicted i,r another case However, aflcr his reledse, he appeared belore the Ooud

2.preclsely, the facts relevant lo the disposal of lhe rnstanl criminal bail application are that ln the year :'007, the$ompla fant supplled plaslic shopping bags (thailies) to M/s. Fateh Group Limrted, againsl which the company,ssued Oheques in the year 2009. However, these cheques werc dishonoured. As a result, the conrplainant lodged folr FlRs, which lvere registered in the year 2009 at Police Slation SITE, Karachi Al lhe lime of a compromise, the applicant, being the Chakman of lvl/s FaLeh Group Limited, issued three Cheques b€ra lng the signatures of the Compafy's Direclors, nanrely Asadulah Barkat Humayun tsarkat. l,,4aqsocd Ahmed *r Khan, I\4uhammad Saleem, Abdul R.tzzak Memon. and I\ruhammad Ayub. Of these, one Cheque was encashe( v/hile another Cheque Nc 81133490

11'2o1g due to insLlffrclenl funds' for Rs. 3OO,OOO was dlshonored ot12 'lR leading to lhe regrsl'ation ol the olesel:

contsnded that the applicant has 3. Learned Counset Ior the applicant t t"uty Ue.n implicated in this casi: bv the complainant with malafide to speclflc role have been assigned intention and ulterior motiv€siihal no the applicant neithe( the applicant ha( rssued Ch$que to the complainant lhe compla;nant have not alleged nor the signatory ot subiect Cheque arrd and section 489-F' PPC ls not the issuance Cheque by the applicant section 420 PPC is bailable and applicable againsi the applicant' howEver ls to be proved al trail; that lhe tf," ingl."Ol"nt" of,ny tens'ea or intention tune of Rs 16'65'000 00 by means applicant has paid all his liability to the facts was also ol a pay order in iavour of the complainant' which o1 12'20?2 passed in criminal Bail mentioned in the order dated ol the the all€ged incident of dishonor Application No- 2041 of 2022; that cfreque is stateO to have taken phce on 21'11 2019' however the instant delay of about two and hall months FIR was lodged on 0g 02 2020 with applicant is reg[larly appeanng without plausible explanation; that lhe pre-a est bail order dated 14 '03 2025 may before Trlal Court; lhat interim learned Counsel has relicd be confirnred. In supporl of hls con'enlions' upon followjng case laws :'

Kazi Vs' NAB and i. 2019 YLR 650 (Sindh) (l'lustata Jamal others) Ashraf Vs' The ii 2015 P'CrLJ 1o5o (l-ahore) (Muhammad State) a contended that the

4.The leamed Counsel for he complainant speciflc role; that the applicant rs appticant is nominated io FIR wiilr cases of simllar nalure; thal the habitual crimlnal and inl/olved in se/eral time of corrrpromise in Criminal applicant issLred subjecl cheque al the Case Nb.718/2010 betore the leaflled lln'l Judicial Magistrate Karachl before the bank il was Wesli that when lhe cheque v!a! presenled dishonoLlred; thal lhe aPPlicanl issued subjeci cheque dishonestly

therelore, pre-arrest ball rnay be dlslnlssed the arEuments

5.The learned AP.G..Sindh or the State adopted I'or complainant and furlher contended advanced by the learned Couhsei cn the record' therefore' pre- lhat sulticient prima facle matorial i9 available arrest bailmay be dismissed'

6.Heard. Record PeiJsed

&,P

A perusar of section 48s-F PPc *v"?ff::t:ilT"H"#l;:

ar aRracted il the lollowing condltions prosecution

(i)issuance of chequel dlshonesl intention;

(ii)such issuance was wlth should bei- - ol issuanoe-ol cheques

(iii)lhe purpose

(a)to'"'"Y',loun ot alra " rwhich in \Nrde term inter

(E)lo fu(rl an obligEli( ipil;it'" :*kl:U::f"::l""lliJni"1lffi bv whtcn 'l"isas u'.ul'toilo -",o " Pu'to''nun""t t,,r::,::?T::",1';:''L"J[:"n.":"*::J:;'f"de[#3f :f -':"d

(,) he rrad T""'lii::iJlTl,""I"I":':,:;'*''"''' that the cheques v

the cheqLle in dishonoring (iD ihat the bankwas af{ault

? ro prove "" "1"-"-i,1']",:-t:""T:":":lt"i;::::";::; ';1"1;i-Jll."']"J,";.:n:;::::*:::::.:::TJ'ff T: claims rhat * -"'.

tu'J "ompta;n,nt il:: #;; z-oos, rt

uopt,.,n, parries iF respect ol ea"'"'t'*tl''*11'-"rr,". s Direcro.s. one or company lhe 'n""i"or""*" ,ssued thrce c'requcs oearing ur,ar"go ano\,n\ing ro

cheque was **.n* '"1"^"j"]ll";i;;,; ;,," ro insur,crent tunds. Rs.3oo,ooo/ wrs oisnonouteo "t' 1 cheque was nol has , ,n", s;bjccr whc-eas lnc appl'cant . :'t i:""."';,",;o i-" rere,s o[ ope{attol dishonoured t* '"-'T":"::'::::'"',;il;;.,;;, .ared 25 02 2020 \,4anage . Meezan t,atr^i ur I q "- resent case and has conte eo thal addressed to and 07.03'2020 '" :' ';e;c;;;

Ba'rk {'u;r;;a srrE Area. Karachr, concdrned otiicer of r,/leeran f-onr Meezan Bank.

throuqh emarl conllrmed lor cheque "starlo was who rnlornred .oii;,: a;

I"*"li sll f Aren' Hvderabao' dine''' ;;;;; "'"""t or"sisnature ;t"'ue was rerurned wrth r\lmo

I rt rerrects '"', '::^:'::'^l*:; *:il:fi, ir""'"il"'l ;:l Appricarioi No 20r'1 'X.,;,,";,;" ^'l"l: , *. ,,65.000,.ro rhE No 16018480461 ar tt'i' *'l -.:'t:.:T;':

order bearing -uofore ;;r;" Brtrnch' iTj;#J[:::,'Jr":

Meezan Bank, Fateh Chowk lvas relurned by Meezan rhat sutjact cheque

&,/ "?,it """t "'o'ains Bank' Gulbai Branch' SITE Arrra' Karachi' with the comments 'signature

diflei', however, this aspect of lhe case is to be determined by the tral Court after record ng the elidence thal whal was the intention of the percon, issuing il. so as tentative ass('ssment pnrns facle, il is a case of further inqulry.

9.lt is worth noting that Section 4Bg-F P.P.C. enlails maximum punishment ol three years and as such does not fall within the prohibitory cleuse of Section 497. Ci.P.C.. whenlas ihe offence under Section 420, P.P.C., is bailable, thereby making it a matter in whrch grant of bail is a rule and refusal rs an exception as per Sirahzad vs. The State (2023 SCMR 679), Trriq Bashrr and othcrs vs Tre State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and l\4uhammad lanvir vs. State (PLD 2017 S.C. 733)

10.At this stage it rs important to rrote that Section 489-F PPC is not a provision lhat is intended by the legls lature t%be used for recovery of an alleged amount lhrough the crimina crse. lt is only to delermine the guilt of a criminal act and award of a sentence fine or bolh is provided under Section 489-F P.P.C For recovery of said a8ount. cNil proceedings provide remedies, inier alia, under orc,er XXXVII C.P C Reliance is placed on case cl Nazir Ahmed alias Bhaga vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1467) wherein ']on'ble Supreme Courl of Pakrstan observed as lollows:

"Section 4E$F oi P.P.C. is not a provision, whrch is intended by lhe Legislature to be used Ior recovery of an alleged amount rather lor recovery of sny amount, civil proceedings provide remedies, inter alia; under Order XXXVII ot C.P.C."

'11 ln view of tenta(ive assessment of ihe record discussed supra the case of applicant requires further inqrriry as provided under Secl on 497 (2) C. P.C Accordirgly. pre-arrcst barl ,rnnted earl'cr to I're applrcarrl stands confirmeo on lne samc tc'ms and co'rdrtions

12.Needless to mentron lhal tle views erpressed hereinabove are lentalive in nature and shall not prrrjudice the oase of eilher party al lhe lrial and in the meanwhile, it the aFplicant fails to appear before the lria] Court, his Bail may be cancelled b/'lhe trial oourt without obtaining any order lrom thrs Court

The instant BailApplication siands disposed of in the above terrns.

ER€

JUDCE

Y,,ti'