2018 PLP 66 (YLRN)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

Through this application, applicant Syed Asmat Ali has sought his release on bail in case culminated from FIR No.452/2016 for offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 225, 216-A, 34, P.P.C. of Police Station Preedy, Karachi (South), after his bail plea has been declined by the learned IX-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) by dismissing his bail application bearing No.1493 of 2016 vide order dated 01.10.2016.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the subject FIR was lodged on receiving the order from an officer of High Court of Sindh, alleging therein that on 07.05.2005, applicant/accused Syed Asmat Ali stood surety for appellant/ convict Muhammad Saeed S/o Ali Muhammad in Criminal Jail Appeal No.454 of 2004 based on Crime No.33 of 2002, offence under Section 392/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Arambagh by producing his NIC baring No. 604-73233501 showing his wrong address instead of his CNIC bearing No.42401-1676260-3, showing his correct address, issued in the year 2001 and thereby he dishonesty helped the appellant convict Muhammad Saeed to abscond away.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by appellant/convict Muhammad Saeed, who had cheated the applicant/accused; that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted bail.

4. Conversely, learned Additional' Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, contending that there is sufficient material available against the applicant to connect him with this offence; that the applicant has dishonestly got the convict Muhammad Saeed released on bail by standing surety for him, who after his release, has absconded away to Afghanistan. He, therefore, prays that the bail application may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant s well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State and have also gone through the material available on record with the assistance of learned A.P.G.

6. Admittedly the subject FIR has been lodged on the orders of High Court of Sindh; that the allegations against the applicant/accused are of serious nature, for having acted in a deceitful manner, by standing himself as surety for appellant/ convict Muhammad Saeed in the aforementioned Criminal Jail Appeal, producing his NIC bearing No.604-73233501 showing his wrong address instead of producing his CNIC bearing No.42401-1676260-3. showing his correct address, issued to him by NADRA in the year 2001, and thereby he got the convict Muhammad Saeed released on bail in a deceitful manner, and after his release he never attended the Court and is stated to have absconded away to Afghanistan; that there is sufficient material based on record of this Court available against the applicant to connect him with the offence alleged against him: that there is hardly question of false implication of the applicant/accused in the subject FIR; that after more than a decade the applicant was arrested in this case and execution of coercive process i.e. BW's and NBW's repeatedly issued against the applicant/ accused and the absconding appellant/ convict in the above pending Criminal Jail Appeal, was evaded for such a long period: that there is no cavil to the proposition that an accused for an offence, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., cannot claim concession of bail as a matter of right and the Court, in such offences, may decline bail to an accused, if there exists recognized exceptional circumstance(s); and thus grant of bail in a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section ibid is riot a rule of universal application as each and every case is to be dealt with according to its own facts and circumstances and discretion remains with the Court to see, if the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not that the accused involved in the cases like case one in hand, with allegations of helping the convict prisoner in escaping from the custody, in a deceitful manner and hampering the Court proceedings, cannot be encouraged by granting bail on the ground that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State (2003 SCMR 573), the Honourable Supreme of Pakistan while dismissing the petition and refusing the leave, has held that:- "

5. The mere fact that an offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. did not mean that such an offence had become a bailable offence. The discretion still remained with the competent Court to consider whether a person accused of such an offence did or did not deserve the grant of bail in accordance with the established norms governing the exercise of such a power .........

7. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the applicant Syed Asmat Ali is not entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

8. It needs no reiteration that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding bail application, and the same shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case. WA/A-64/Sindh Bail refused.