ABDUL MOIZ MOAZZAMUDDIN (Applicant) VS ABDUL SAMAD BALEEGUDDIN & ANOTHER (Respondent)

I 2-t, b

I

PRf,F ENTED Oh!

"*d0.: .0..8:.&ilR

Oeputy Rogistr (Judt. )

IN THE HIGH COURT Otr'SINDH, AT I{ARACHX

CRL.MISC.NO

d oF 2022

Abdul Moiz Moazzamuddin

P

S1o Ghulam Muhammad v Saddaruddin (Late), fuluslim, adult, resident of House No.B-8, Block No.3, l' Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi............Applicant/Complainaat Versus

U Abdul Samad Baleeghuddin Ol"i r S/o Ghulam Muharnmaci Saddaruddin (Late), ![qslim, Adult, resident of House No.B-54, Block No.12, Gulberg, F.B. Area, Karachi. \ 2l The State dents

F. I. RNo. 167 of2Olr u /s: +19/a2o/467 /458/47t/34 PPc PS: ji<;w Town Kai::chi-East.

APPLICATIOI{ U/S 497I5I CR.P,C

i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Misc. Application No'474 of 2022 Samad Baleeghuddin] [Abdul Moiz Moazzamuddin vs' Abdul

Applicant Abdul Moiz Moazzamuddin (Nemo)

Respondent No.1 : Abdul Sama cl Baleeghuddin through Mr. Naveed Ahmed, advocate

Respondent No.2 : The State Mr. Mumtaz Ali Shah, A.P.G. Sindh

Date of hearing : L4.03.2025

Date of judgment : i4.03.202.5

t

TU DGMENT

t

Application is directed ]an Ali ]unejo, ]r This Criminal Misc' against the Order daled.29-10-2021 passed by the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Eas! whereby

C",

Bail Application No' 5392 of 202L, ftTed on behalf of the It; Respondent No. 1 arising out FIR No'167 /2011' P'S' New Town'

t- Karachi was confirmed.

b. .t.

-.:]: 2. The complainant, Abdul Mueez Moazzamuddin' lodged an FIR at P.S. New Town, alleging that his late father' Ghulam Muhammad Sadruddin, owned two commercial plots in Su{uni Town, Karachi, which were wrongfully taken over by his two brothers, Abdul Khabeer R#iuddin and Abdul Samad Baleeghuddin. While the complainant was abroad' his brothers fraudulentlyobtained a fake Heirship Certificate excluding his name and us€d it to transfer the-. ownership of the plots' One a plot (5B-162 Sector 7-A, Scheme No' 41) was tuansferred to )/ Abdul Samad Baleeghuddin anci later sold to Jahanzaib r'or a significant sum, which the accused misappropriated' Similarly' the second plot (SB-22, Sector 7-A, Scheme No' 41) was

2tD

. NO,4 ?4 oF 202 2

transferred in 2005 to Abdu-l Samad Baleeghuddin and nePhew, Jalaluddin' The subsequentlY to their matemal concealed facts from the accused allegedly forged documents' Karachi Deveiopment Authority (KDA)' misused a Power o{ and committed fraud by Attomey issued by their late father' The complainant producing false wibresses and documents' 4ag' 420' 467' 468' 477' and' requests legal action under Sections 34ofthePakistanPen.rlCode(PPC)againsttheaccused' to present

3.No one appeared on behalf of the Applicant arguments in support of th'e Criminal Miscellaneous

Application. Conversely, counsel fol Respondent No'1 canceilation of bail lacks contended that the application seeking meritandwarrantsdismissal'TheApplicanthasfailedto revocation of bail' as there establish any justifiable grounds for interference in the is no prima facie evidence of its misuse' investigatton, or threats poseo to the complainart' lodging the FIR casts Additionally, the significant delay in The leamed doubt on the credibilitY of the aile gations. of the Additional Sessions Judge, alter careful lonsideration \: bail' and no element o facts and legal provisions, rightly granted in the of malice or r:ndue gfluence has been demonstrateci already been acquitted' process. lurthermore, the accused has acquitted through a and Respondent No.1 has now also bee-rt judgment rendered by the learned trial Court' thereby There is no rendering tlre present applicallon ffiu[tuous' direct evidence implicating Respondenti No'1 in forgery or any necessity for fraud, nor has the prosecution established principles dictate further recove4/ from him' Esta6lished legal that bail should only be revoked under comP elling

or tampering with circumstances, such as absconding case' At mosL the evidence,-both of wirich are absent in this does not suPPort matter warrants further inqurr,v, and thelhw

a)t ?'t I

a

. NO.4.74 0F

cannot arbitrary cancellation of bail' Moreover, bail revocation be used as a means of persecutiory particularly when tl-re

accused has already been exonerated' in light of these and is consideratiors, the application is devoid 9f substance liabte to be dismissed.

The learned Assistant Prosecutor General (APG) has also

the leamed endorsed and adopted the arguments put Iorth by for coulsel for Respondent No.1 ald has accordingly prayed the dismissal of the Criminal Nfiscellaneous Application'

5.I have meticulously reviewed the case record and thoroughly considered the arg-umenG ' The cenkal question before tiris Court is whether bail, once granted by "l competent

court of law, can be subsequentiy cancelled' It is a well-

established legal principle that once an accused has been ..,,: of its ,t' -.

granted bail by a court of comPetent iurisdiction' the issue l/"l'' cancellation becomes redundant unless specilic legal grouirds llw:.

l,=:i i exist. Bail can only be revoked i{ it is demonstrated that ll r.- the

. arccused has misused the concession, absconded' or inter'fered :t ' . ... 1.:,,,. with the prosecutiort's case-none of which have been substantiated in the Present matter' The lega1 principles governing the grant of bail and its canceltration rest on distinct foundations. Bail is not to be withdrawn udess the order $anting it, is manifestly illegal, factually incorrec! erroneous' or has led to a rniscarriage of justice' Furthermore' cancellation may be warranted if the accused is found to be misusing bail by issuing threats or tampering with prosecution evidence' Cor:rts have consistently exercised caution in cancelling bail' as a personal liberty cannot be curtaiied on trivial or Y l

unsubstantiated grounds. The criteria for bail cancellation closely align with the legal standards applicable to sefting aside an acquittal order. Once baii has been grar-'ted by a comPetent

yL

. N0,4?4 0r'2022 4

Court, it can only be cancelled under skong ald exceptional circumstances. In this regard, re{etence may be made to the

case of The State through Director rt' Shakil-ur'Relumn yLR 1,468). Additionally, the recold revedb that trespondent o{ the No.1 has aJready been acquitted under Section 245(1) by the CI.P.C. through a judgment datea 01-07-2024' issued leamed )OOCInd Judicial Magrstrate, Karachi-East' in Criminal Case No.162 of. 2013, arising out of FIR No'157 of 20\1' t registered under Sections 420,468,47'1" and 34 of the PPC at

P.S. New Town, Karachi. Given this acquittal' the question of

bail cancellation is now irrelevant and without legal justification.

6.Given these circumstances, this Cor:rt finds no lega1 justification to interfere with the bail order' as the entire proceedings have been disposed of through acquittal ' The

Criminal Miscellaneous Application is ryithout merit and is 't-

F- I

u- hereby dismissed accordinglY.

I