| Case ID |
1e361d70-3326-4225-804c-3b760144dde7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Bail Application No. 1808 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 11, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court denied the bail application of Muhammad Kamran Bhatti, citing that he is a habitual offender linked to multiple cases of issuing dishonored cheques. The court emphasized that the refusal of bail was warranted due to the applicant's involvement in serious financial misconduct, which undermines public trust in financial instruments. The judge noted that the mere fact that the charged offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not automatically entitle the applicant to bail. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's claims of innocence and abduction lacked sufficient credibility, especially given the complainant's substantial evidence against him. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated entitlement to the concession of bail based on the presented facts and circumstances, leading to the dismissal of the bail application. |
| Summary |
In the case of Muhammad Kamran Bhatti vs. The State, the Sindh High Court addressed a bail application concerning charges of dishonestly issuing a cheque under Section 489-F of the Penal Code. The court, presided over by Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, concluded that the applicant had a history of similar offenses, warranting a refusal of bail. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining integrity in financial transactions, particularly in light of the growing skepticism surrounding dishonored cheques. The decision reflects the judicial system's commitment to deterring financial crimes and protecting public trust. The refusal of bail serves as a reminder that each case is evaluated on its own merits, and habitual offenders are less likely to receive leniency. This ruling underscores the necessity for thorough scrutiny in financial matters, especially when allegations involve influential parties, which can often complicate the proceedings. The outcome of this case reinforces the principle that the severity of the alleged crime and the defendant's past conduct play crucial roles in bail considerations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AFTAB AHMED GORAR,
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN BHATTI
|
| Lawyers |
Aamir Mansoob Qureshi,
Ms. Seema Zaidi,
Umar Farooq
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Kamran Bhatti
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1745,
2018 YLR 1554
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733),
Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708),
Ali Hakimuddin Ghulam Ali Mandviwala v. The State and another (2009 MLD 1189),
Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCMR 442),
Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174),
Saleh Muhammad v The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211),
The State v. The Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163)
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
497,
489-F
|