IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH AT MULTAN
Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010
Zahid Sarfaraz S/o Karim Bux Caste Dhadyana Sayal R/o Chak No 54/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari. Presently at District Jail Vehari .
Petitioner…
Versus 1.The State S/O Khud Khuda a Yaar Yaar Ca Cast ste e Qa Qais is R/o R/o 2. Muhammad Akram S/O Zaheer Abad, Tehsil Malsi District Vehari .
Respondents… F.I. R. No: Dated: Occurrence: Offence U/S: P.S Date of Arrest
158/2010 26-06-10 at 11-00 A.M 29-01-10 at OO-00 A.M 489-F P.P.C Chab Kalan, Tehsil & District Khanewal. 28-06-2010
PET ETIITION TION
UNDER NDER SE SECT CTIION 497 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF POST-ARREST BAIL.
Respectfully sheweth:1.
That as per the information provided by the Petitioner, this is the first bail application moved in this Hon’ble Court
on
the
subject
in
hand,
however,
earlier,
Applicati Applications ons under abovement abovementioned ioned Sections Sections of Cr.P.C Cr.P.C have have been been file filed d with with the the Co Cour urtt of Addi Additi tion onal al Sess Sessio ion n Jud Judge ge Mian Mianch chan annu nu,, and and in the the Co Cour urtt of Lear Learne ned d Ilaq Ilaqa a Magi agistr strate ate
Mian Mianc chann hannu, u,
which ich
were we re
dismissed on 11-08-2010 and 14-07-2010.
respe espec ctive tivelly
Copy of the Bail Application and Order dated 11-08-2010 is attached as Annex-A & A-I & Copy of the Bail Application and Order dated 14-07-2010 is attached as Annex-B & B-I 2.
That story of the prosecution according to F.I.R is that Respondent No 2 lodged a complaint with the contention that Petitioner has issued him a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/1,50,000/- as considera consideration tion of a car, car, purchased purchased by the the petitioner from the Respondent No 2, and the same was got dishonored for the want of insufficient funds. Hence, this F.I.R.
Certified Copy of the F.I.R No 158/10 dated 2606-2010 is attached as Annex-C 3.
The entire story contained in the FIR is false, concocted, malicious and vexatious in nature and has been cooked up by the local Police in collusion with the complainant Respondent No 2 to involve the Petitioner in the instant case and the Petitioner pray for the Post-arrest bail, inter alia, on the following
GROUNDS a) That Petitioner has never purchased the alleged Car
form the Respondent No 2 against the consideration of Rs. 150,000/-, nonetheless, petitioner has exchanged his car with that of the Respondent No 2 by entering into an agreement dated 23-04-2009 wherein it has been been agre agreed ed by and and betw betwee een n the the part partie ies s that that the the Peti Petiti tion oner er shal shalll addi additi tion onal ally ly pay pay an amou amount nt of Rs. Rs. 37000/- to the Respondent No 2 out of which Rs. 5000/were paid at the spot and Rs. 5000/- were agreed to be paid paid on 01-0 01-055-20 2009 09.. Re Rema main inin ing g Rs. Rs. 2700 27000/ 0/-- we were re agreed to be paid in monthly installments of Rs. 2000/each. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact has been admitted by the Respondent No 2 by making his statement dated 04-03-2010 before the I.O P.S Thingi district district Vehari. Copy of the Agreeme Agreement nt dated dated 23-0423-042009 is atta ttache ched as Annex-D & Copy of the
Comments along with the Statement of Respondent No 2 dated 04-03-2010 is attached as Annex-E. b) Th That acco accorrding
to the the sto story of prosecu ecutio tion as
narrated in F.I.R as well as in the Petition filed before the learned Justice of Peace Vehari, the Respondent No 2 went to the house of Petitioner Six (6) months ago whereby the Petitioner purchased the alleged Car from the Respondent no 2 and Promised to pay the alleged sale sale amo amount unt in next next 6 mont months hs.. It is pert pertin inen entt to mention here that version of Respondent No 2 came for the first time on 11-02-2010 when he filed Petition u/s u/s 22-A 22-A befo before re Just Justic ice e of Peac Peace e Veh Vehari. ari. It coul could, d, therefore, therefore, be said that allegedly the car was purchased by the Petiti Petitione onerr on 11-08-200 11-08-2009. 9.
Thus Thus there there was no
need to issue a cheque in favour of Respondent No 2 by the Petit Petitio ioner ner befor before e the the expir expiry y stipu stipulat lated ed time. time. Ther There e is also also no justif justifica icatio tion n of Re Respo spond ndent ent No 2’s demand to return back the said vehecal before the laps of the agreed period of 6 months. Copy of the Petition dated 11-02-2010 is attached as Annex-F. c) Tha Thatt even even the the I.O, I.O, whil while e appl applyi ying ng for for the the Judi Judici cial al
remand of the Petitioner on 07-07-2010 stated that the story of the Respondent No 2 and circumstances of the case are doubtful. d) Tha Thatt
notw notwit iths hsta tand ndin ing g the the fact facts s narr narrat ated ed here herein in,,
Petitioner has also made a report on 31-12-2009 before the P.S City, Vehari pertaining to the theft of cheque in question and has sworn in an affidavit to that effect also. Copy of the affidavit is attached as Annex-G. e) That Petitioner has been involved in the instant case
with mala fide intentions to fulfill ulterior motives of Respondent No 2. Respondent No 2 has also tried to invo involv lve e the the Peti Petiti tion oner er in anot anothe herr case case with with simi simila larr offence offence on the complai complaint nt of his close close relative relative/fami /family ly friend friend maintain maintaining ing that Petitio Petitioner ner has furnishe furnished d with the compl complain ainan antt a bogu bogus s chequ cheque e of someo someone ne else. else. Copy of the Petition before Justice of Peace Malsi is attached as Annex-H, Annex-H , Copy of Order dated 15-03-2010
is attached as Annex-I. Annex-I. Certificate issued by the Bank is attached as Annex-J. Annex-J. f) That matter pertains to a fiscal transaction and there
has been an established business relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No 2. Furthermore even the story of the revels that a trustful relationship has been developed between the two sides. Therefore the elemen elementt of fraud fraud and disho dishone nest st inten intentio tion n is simply simply ruled
out
even
through
the
version
of
the
complainant/Respondent No 2. Reliance is placed on (2000 P.Cr.L.J 1230). (P.L.D 2008 Kar 212). g) That even according to the Section 93 of “Negotiable “Negotiable
Inst Instru rume ment nts s Act Act 1881 1881” ” it was was manda andato tory ry for for the the respondent No 2 to serve the Petitioner with a notice pertaining to such dishonoring of the cheques (if any) prior to lodging the Criminal proceedings to prove his bona bona-fi -fide de.. Relian Reliance ce in this this regar regard d is place placed d on PLD 2006 Lah. 752
h)
That as the matter pertains to the fiscal
transactions, thus a civil suit for rendition of accounts is a proper and efficacious remedy for the same. i) That the FIR has been been registered registered on false accusations accusations in connivance with the local police. Furthermore, if the Petitioner be kept in jail and prosecution fails to prove its case, the Period spent by the Petitioner in the Jail cannot be compensated in any way. The Petitioner is a respec respectab table le citize citizen n and and his furth further er arres arrestt will will caus cause e humiliation to him and his family. j) Th That
alle lleged offe ffence does not
fal fall
under
the the
provisions of prohibitory clause thus grant of bail is a rule rule and and refu refusa sall is an exce except ptio ion. n. Pres Presum umpt ptio ion n of inno innoce cenc nce e
lies lies
with with
the the
Peti Petiti tio oner ner
unle unless ss
Tried ried,,
Convicted and sentenced by the Competent Court of Law. Reliance is placed on 2009 P.Cr.L.J 497 k) T Tha hatt the the char charge ge if any any agai agains nstt the the Peti Petiti tion oner er is
groundless and there is no chance of the conviction of the Petitioner. Body of the Petitioner is not required to the
Police
anymore
and
no
recovery
is
to
be
effectuated from the Petitioner thus no useful purposed is to be served having Petitioner behind the Bar before Trail. Reliance is placed on 2004 YLR 2227. l) That the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has
never been convicted of any offence and he cannot even think of violating the law. Petitioner carries no crim crimin inal al hist histor ory y and and his his past past cond conduc uctt canno annott be negated for consideration of granting bail. Reliance is placed on PLD 2005 Lah 607. m)
That the Petitioner is ready to furnish such
security as may be sufficient for the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court and undertakes to appear before the before the Court as and when required.
Unde Underr the the circ circum umst stan ance ces s it is humb humbly ly prayed
that
the
Petitioner
may
graciously be granted Post Arrest Bail till the the fina finall deci decisi sion on of the the case case agai agains nstt them.
Petitioner Through:
Certificate As per per instr instruc uctio tions ns this this is the first first postpost-arr arres estt bail bail applic applicati ation on on the the subject in this Hon’ble Court .
Advocate.
KHALID MASOOD GHANI (Advocate High Court) 132-Old Block Dist Courts Multan CC No: 3792
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT MULTAN
C.M No _____/10 IN
Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010 Zahid Sarfaraz
APPLICATIO APPLICATION N
Versus The State etc.
Under Under Section Section 151 C.P.C C.P.C to dispense dispense with some certified copies of some documents.
May it please your yo ur lordship:1. That the above mentioned Bail Application has been filed in this
Hon’ble Court. 2. That certifie certified d copies of some some documents documents attached attached herewith herewith as as annexes annexes of Writ Petition are not available at present. However photocopies of the said documents are attached. 3. That That the the peti petiti tion oner er will will subm submit it the the cert certif ifie ied d copi copies es as and and when when directed.
herefor eforee In view of the above it is ther humbly prayed that certified copies of the documents attached with the Bail Application may kindly be dispense with.
Applicant
Through
Khalid Masood Ghani Advocate High Court 132-Old Block Dist Courts Multan CC No: 3792
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT MULTAN
To The Deputy Registrar, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan.
Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010
Zahid Sarfaraz VERSUS The VERSUS The State . Sir,
Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as an urgent one in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9, Chapter 3-A Rules and Orders of the High Court, Lahore at Bench Multan Volume-V
Bail Matter. Yours obediently,
Khalid Masood Ghani Advocate High Court, 132-Old Block District Courts, Multan. CC No.3792
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT MULTAN
Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010
Zahid Sarfaraz VERSUS The VERSUS The State . INDEX
S Description of Documents #
Annexur e
Dated
A & A-I
11-08-10
B & B-I
14-07-10
C
26-06-10
D
23-04-09
E
04-03-10
8 . Copy of Petition U/s 22-A at Vehari
F
11-02-10
9 . Copy of Affidavit
G
31-12-09
H
15-03-10
I
15-03-10
J
16-08-10
Page No.
1 . Urgent Form 1 2 . Bail Application 3 Copy of the Bail Application before . Addl. Session Judge, Mianchannu and Order thereof 4 Copy of the Bail Application before . Ilaqa Magistrate Mianchannu and Order thereof 5 Certified Copy of the F.I.R No . 158/10 with Batter Copy 6 . Copy of agreement 7 Copy of Statement by Respondent . No 2
1 0 Copy of Petition u/s 22-A at Malsi . 1 1 Copy of Order . 1 2 Certificate issued by Bank . 1 3 Application for dispensation dispensation . 1 4 Power of Attorney .
Petitioner
Through: Khalid Masood Ghani Advocate High Court 132-Old Block District Courts Multan CC No: 3792
