AZIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of an offence involving a disputed financial transaction and a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner contended that a significant portion of the alleged amount had already been paid, that the remaining balance was minimal, and that he had initiated a civil suit for the cancellation of the underlying document. Conversely, the State and the complainant argued that the cheque amount was substantially higher than claimed by the petitioner and that the cheque was dishonoured due to a dormant account. The Court observed discrepancies in the complainant's signatures on payment documents compared to his identity card and noted that the civil suit for cancellation of the document was filed seventeen days after the registration of the First Information Report. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and noting the timing of the civil litigation, the Court held that no case for pre-arrest bail was made out and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Does the filing of a civil suit for cancellation of a document after the registration of an FIR constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a case for pre-arrest bail made out when the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had already paid Rupees 17, lacs in two instalments through written agreement, that Rs,1,17,000 was yet to be paid and in this regard a cheque was handed over to the complainant but unfortunately due to shortage of amount in the account of the present petitioner he could not pay the rest of the amount to the complainant, that offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he has filed suit for cancellation of document.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant. He submits that petitioner had issued a cheque of Rupees 18 lac, 17 thousand and not rupees one lac, 17 thousand. Learned counsel for the complainant has also shown me photostat copy of the said cheque, which could not be encashed because account was dormant.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the cheque could be produced in the Bank the payment of Rupees 17 lacs was already made to the complainant.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I had also seen the identity card of the complainant, he signs in English while on these two documents, which relates to payment of rupees 17 lac he had signed in Urdu. As far as, filing of suit for cancellation of document is concerned, that was filed on 26-3-2004 while the F.I.R. Was lodged 9-3-2004 i.e, 17 days after lodging the F.I.R. No case for bail before arrest is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed.