MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail was filed by the petitioner in case FIR No. 183 of 2005, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chehlyak, Multan. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000 in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured upon presentation at the bank. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated with mala fide intent, that the transaction fell outside the prohibitory clause, that the civil dispute was settled via mutation, and that territorial jurisdiction lay in Lodhran or Vehari. The State and complainant opposed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner failed to join the investigation after his bail was dismissed by the trial court and that the cheque was presented in a bank branch at Multan. The Lahore High Court found that the issuance, presentation, and dishonour of the cheque were admitted facts, and the petitioner failed to establish any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without the petitioner establishing specific mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution?
- Does presentation of a cheque at a bank branch within a district confer territorial jurisdiction on the local police to register an FIR under Section 489-F PPC?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.183 of 2005 dated 30-6-2005 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. On the complaint of Ghulam Qasim at Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lac only), which was presented before the concerned Bank and the same was dishonoured. Hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that offence against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause; that the disputed cheque was issued and presented at District Lodhran and case could not be registered regarding the same transaction at Multan. Further submits that dispute between *he parties is of civil nature and the petitioner got sanctioned the matatton after payment of entire amount.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation after dismissal of his bail from the Court of first instance and the disputed cheque was presented in Bank of Punjab, MDA Branch at Multan.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Issuance of cheque and presentation for the same before the concerned bank and also its dishonour are the admitted facts. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that cheque was issued and dishonoured from the concerned bank at District Vehari is concerned, it has been cl early shown that the disputed cheque Was presented in the Bank of Punjab, M.D.A.
Chowk Branch at Multan and in this way case was also registered at Multan. Petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution that as to why he has been falsely involved in the case.
7. Resultantly the instant bail petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- Syed Raza Farooq and others vs The State 2025 YLR 147
- Syed raza Farooq Versus State 2025 YLR 147
- Anees Ahmad s/o Mian Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Akram 2019 SC AJK 73
- TANVIR ELAHI vs THE STATE and others 2010 YLR 2110
- TANVEER ELAHI, DIRECTOR TAJ TEXTILE MILLS (LTD.) LAHORE vs STATE and another PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 847