TAHIR SOHAIL GONDAL vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application concerning an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner issued two cheques in 2001 which were subsequently dishonoured. The core legal question before the court was whether the offence under Section 489-F, which was not on the statute book at the time the cheques were issued and dishonoured in 2001, could be applied retrospectively to the petitioner's conduct. The court, noting that the State did not controvert the petitioner's contention regarding the non-existence of the law at the time of the alleged offence and observing the inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. in 2004, held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The judgment affirms the principle that criminal statutes cannot be applied retrospectively to acts committed prior to their enactment, and that significant, unexplained delays in the registration of an F.I.R. are relevant factors in the grant of bail.
- Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied retrospectively to acts committed before its enactment?
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This is an application for the grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,349 dated 29-6-2004 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., at Police Station Cantt. District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the petitioner issued two cheques dated 17-3-2001 and 17-4-2001 which were dishonoured when presented to the banker on 17-4-2001. The F.I.R. Was lodged on 29-6-2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence if any took place on 17-4-2001 when section 489-F, P.P.C. Was not on the Statute Book. He has placed reliance on Afaf Rahim v.
Nisar Ahmad and 2 others 2004 PCr.LJ 263 to contend that no offence under this provision can be made out against the petitioner retrospectively. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. Lodged on 29- 6-2004 was filed with inordinate delay which has not been explained by the prosecution.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has not seriously controverted either of the grounds raised by the petitioner.
5. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.