1. ' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---The Applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 30-11-2011 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Bail Application No. 3778/11 emanating from Crime No. 268 of 2011 registered at Police Station Qasimabad under sections 489-F, 506(2), 147, 148, 149 P.P.C., whereby the bail application of the Applicant Tanzim Khan son of Shakoor Khan was declined, has filed instant bail application.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the instant F.I.R. Was registered pursuant to an order passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on 14-10-2011 on an application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Filed by the complainant wherein the present applicant has not been nominated nor assigned any role. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the contents of Para-3. It is further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant crime in order to drag him in these false proceedings to exert pressure whereas the main accused, who has allegedly issued the cheques, which were bounced, has absconded and the applicant is behind the bars since 24-11-2011. Per learned counsel, neither the applicant has issued the cheques nor he has anything to do with the alleged offence whereas no recovery whatsoever has been effected from him. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:--
(1) 2007 YLR 1378 (Shahzad Waseem and another v. The State)
(2) 2010 YLR 888 (Rizwan Hanif and 2 others v. The State)
3. ' Conversely, learned counsel for complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and states that since the present applicant was conniving with main accused Faraz Khan in the instant crime therefore, he is equally responsible for the same offence hence he may not be enlarged on bail. He further states that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role.
4. ' Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Sindh for the State also opposed the grant of bail to the applicant to the extent that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. And in terms of section 149, P.P.C. Is responsible for the same.
5. ' I have heard both the learned counsel as well as Deputy Prosecutor-General Sindh and perused the record.
6. ' On tentative assessm ent of the record, it appears that instant F.I.R. Has been registered in view of the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on the application filed under section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C, wherein the present applicant has not been nominated nor any role has been assigned to him. There is delay of about 27 days in moving the application before the Sessions Judge whereas there is delay of about 42 days in registration of F.I.R. The element of consultation and false involvement of the present applicant cannot be ruled out whereas disputed cheques have not been issued by the present applicant and the matter requires further inquiry.
7. ' I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One Hundred Thousand) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
8. ' Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the decision of the Trial Court, who will decide the case strictly on merits based on material available.
9. ' Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending applications.