NASIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application arises from Crime No.45 of 2003 registered at Police Station Phulleli, Hyderabad, under sections 420, 489-F, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dispute over a business investment and a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the trial is not expected to conclude expeditiously. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, given that he had already been in custody for five months and the punishment for the primary offence is three years. The court established the key principles that criminal proceedings can proceed alongside civil proceedings, but bail is warranted when the accused has suffered substantial pre-trial incarceration for a non-prohibitory offence and the trial lacks prompt conclusion.
- Are criminal proceedings barred in the presence of civil proceedings?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial is unlikely to conclude expeditiously?
- Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a business dispute warrant the denial of bail despite substantial pre-trial detention?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is involved in Crime No.45 of 2003, Police Station, Phulleli, Hyderabad, under sections 420, 489-F and 506(2), P.P.C. Pending trial in the Court of IIIrd. Extra Joint Civil Judge and FCM, Hyderabad.
2. ' Precisely, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are that the applicant was paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000 by the complainant on 9-6-2002 for the purpose of establishing joint business. On demand of repayment, the applicant issued a cheque on 2-7,-2003 amounting to " Rs.8,65,000, which was dishonoured.
3. ' It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable while the punishment provided for offence under section 489-F is three years and that the offence under section 506(2), P.P.C. Was not prima facie made out. The applicant was arrested on 31-7- 2003 and is behind bars since then.
4. ' Learned State counsel submits that the applicant has committed offence of fraud but adds that the offence alleged does not fall within prohibitory clause and applicant is in jail since last five months.
5. ' Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, vehemently opposed the grant of bail arguing that the applicant deserved exemplary punishment, for having the complainant deprived of a huge amount. He suggested that instead of granting bail to the applicant, the trial Court be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. Material placed on record has been perused.
6. ' Arguments have been heard and the Court be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
7. It is a settled proposition of law that the criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings. However, it is equally well-settled that a verdict in criminal proceedings cannot be pronounced till the result of the civil case. In the case in hand the complainant has also filed a summary suit, in which leave to defend has been granted to the applicant subject to condition of furnishing security. It is stated at the aar that the security has been furnished, which fact has been confirmed by the complainant.
8. ' The offence alleged is punishable by three years and the criminal case is not expected to be disposed of expeditiously. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail, more particularly when he has remained in custody for a period of five months. In the circumstances, applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 to the satisfaction of trial Court.