Jehan Khan vs The State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises out of a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque drawn on a closed bank account. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the period already spent in custody, the maximum punishment provided, and the nature of the accusation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of bail in non-bailable offences is discretionary and not a matter of right. The Court laid down the principle that the repetition of identical offences indicating habitual criminality, coupled with the admission of guilt and the element of fraud inherent in white-collar crimes such as issuing bogus cheques, constitutes exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of post-arrest bail.
- Whether the issuance of a cheque on a closed bank account constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Does the habitual commission of identical offences under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
- Is bail in non-bailable offences a matter of right or a discretionary relief?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. - This petition for post arrest bail arises out of case FIR No. 82, dated 2.5.2005 alleging commission of offence under section 489-F, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, City Chakwal. Arshad Mehmood complainant has alleged that on the strength of relations and dire need the petitioner on 25.12.2003 obtained loan in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/t cash from the complainant in the presence of witnesses named in the FIR. The money was to be returned after a month. The petitioner failed to repay and ultimately wrote a cheque in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- dated 7.5.2004 drawn on his account in M.C.B., Chakwal. On presentation the cheque was dishonoured with his remarks that the petitioner had closed the said account on 15.7.2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that maximum punishment for the offence alleged under section 489-F, P.P.G, is three year the petitioner has already spent five months in jail; no recovery has been effected from him and although challan has been presented but the trial is not in sight, the petitioner should be granted bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted forcefully that the execution of the bogus cheque is admitted by the petitioner who intended the same to be dishonoured because it was issued on his account that was already closed. Furthermore the learned counsel has submitted that offence in question under section 489-F, P.P.C, is cognizable, not bailable and not compoundable, therefore, maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment or fine or both must be considered in the perspective of the aforesaid characteristics. The offence in question is meant to check while color crime which petitioner has resorted habitually as evidenced by a number of FIRs registered against him for precisely the same offence, the commission whereof is admitted by the petitioner, as in the present case. The details of these FIRs are given below:-
(i) FIR No. 176, dated 4.9.2004 under section 489-F, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, City Chakwal.
(ii) FIR No. 217, dated 7.8.2005 under section 489-F, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, Saddar Chakwal.
3. The grant of concession of bail in non-bailable offences is discretionary that cannot be demanded by right. Reliance is placed oh the cases of Muhammad Siddiqul v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442) and Imtiaz Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1997 S.C. 545). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized exceptional circumstance, to be a good ground for refusal of bail, In the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of a series of identical crimes under section 489-F,-P.P.C. The petition of the offence alleged, stigmatizes the petitioner with habitually and, therefore, constitutes; an exceptional circumstance weighing against grant of bail, In . Any event, the admission of guilt for the commission of the offence is also an exceptional circumstance which together with element of fraud inherent to the offence alleged makes the present ease utterly unsuitable presently for the grant of concession of bail after arrest.
Reliance is placed upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Unilever Pakistan Ltd. v.
Muhammad Rafique and another (2005 YLR 686) and Lai Hussain v. Muhammad Akber and 2 others (1995 | P.Cr.L.J. 946). Accordingly, this petition Does not make out the case for concession of bail after arrest and is dismissed.