Rana EHASN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonour of four cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in similar cases and had defrauded the complainant. Upon review, the Lahore High Court held that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and therefore, the grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify denying bail, noting that nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner and that indefinite incarceration was not warranted. Consequently, the Court accepted the application, granting bail subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause, bail should generally be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere allegation of being a habitual offender constitute an exceptional circumstance sufficient to deny bail in a non-prohibitory offence?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when no further recovery is required from them?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this application under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.389, dated 13-10-2003 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt., Multan.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner is that he gave four Cheques Nos.354222, 354223, 062053 and 564151 for Rs.3,00,000 which were presented in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Nawan Sher Branch, Multan but the same were dishonoured as no amount was in the said account.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause. It is also contended that these cheques were issued as security as the passengers had travelled on the documents supplied by the petitioner and implication of the petitioner is false.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And had defrauded the complainant. It is further contends that the petitioner is involved in another similar type of case registered by the police and is a habitual offender.
Further contends that the accused involved in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause cannot be granted bail as a matter of right. Reliance is placed on 2002 SCM R 442, and 2001 PCr.LJ 291.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant were doing business with each other. Issuance of some cheques could be as a result of above-said business narrated in the F.I.R. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. I do not find any exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail. Even otherwise, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 8 cases
- JIBRAN RASHEED vs SIRAJ UL HAQ and another 2019 YLR 2891
- GHULAM RABBANI Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 190
- Nauman Qureshi vs State 2015-PHC
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 774
- IMRAN vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 462
- KASHIF KHAN vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1418
- Mst. SHEZAN SANAULLAH vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 522
- Messrs ASKARI LEASING LIMITED through Branch Manager vs Rana 2005 P Cr. L J 1265