IMTIAZ HUSSAIN vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and another
This criminal petition was filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in granting pre-arrest bail considering the pendency of a civil suit between the parties and the fact that the accused is a woman. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the exercise of discretion by the lower court was proper as the matter involved further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the sub judice civil dispute regarding the cheque, and the accused was additionally entitled to consideration as a woman under the first proviso to section 497(1). The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail will not be cancelled where the case falls within the scope of further inquiry and the trial court has properly exercised its judicial discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled when the matter involves further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same transaction provide a ground for sustaining pre-arrest bail?
- Is a woman accused entitled to special consideration for bail under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Imtiaz Hussain, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No,1 by Mian Khadim Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 30-9-2003 in Case F.I.R. No,145 dated 21-9-2003 under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Sarwar Road, Lahore.
2. Precisely the allegation against her is that she (respondent No,1) on 3-2-2003 had issued Cheque No,7836558 in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 in his (petitioner) favour while the same was dishonoured.
3. She moved an application for pre-arrest bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore. The same came up for hearing before the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide his abovementioned order has extended her such relief observing mainly that there seems mala fide of the petitioner (complainant) in the matter being in league with her husband as civil suit between her on one han4 and the petitioner and her husband on the other is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court; and that she is a woman and so the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Is also attracted to her case and that in case she is handed over to the police, she will suffer - humiliation and loss to her reputation and chastity at the hands of the police.
4. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has come to this Court With this petition seeking withdrawal of the same.
5. It has been argued on his behalf that the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in extension of such relief to her are not correct as the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is clearly made out against her, and that the question of recovery of amount from her is involved in the matter and such object has been frustrated by the grant of said relief to her.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone through the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
7. As indicated above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while extending her such relief was influenced by the fact that there existed mala fide on the part of the petitioner _being in league with her husband in the registration of the case against her that the civil suit between her on one hand the petitioner and her husband on the other regarding the same question of issuing of cheque is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court and that she is a woman and that there is likelihood of her suffering loss in reputation and humiliation in case she is refused the relief sought for by her.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the fact that she had brought suit for permanent injunction against the complainant and her husband and in the same status quo order has been issued by the Court concerned.
9. The above position clearly shows that the question.Of issuance of cheque or otherwise by her in favour of the petitioner is sub judice before competent Court. So, some decision is to be made therein by the Civil Court. Hence, her case required further inquiry into her guilt The same, therefore, stood covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. She is a woman. On that count too she deserved the grant of relief prayed for by her. There had been involved no question of recovery from her.
11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in the matter keeping in view the settled principles governing the grant or otherwise of such relief. Thus, no case for cancellation of bail to her has been made out. The petition therefore, is dismissed in limine.