FARRUKH HAMEED vs STATE and another
The petitioner Farrukh Hameed sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 23.6.2005 under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi, involving a dishonoured cheque issued as earnest money for a property transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the cheque was issued as earnest money rather than an enforceable financial obligation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the real intention of the parties regarding the agreement required determination by the trial court through evidence, the charged offence fell outside the prohibitory clause, and keeping the accused incarcerated indefinitely served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and involves disputed contractual obligations requiring trial evidence, further detention is unwarranted, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether a cheque issued as earnest money rather than an enforceable obligation attracts Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is keeping an accused behind bars for an indefinite period justified when further investigation is no longer required?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Petitioner Fafrukh Hameed through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 294 dated 23.6.2005 under Section 489-F PPC registered with Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi.
2. The prosecution case is that complainant Saeed Akhtar lodged FIR against the petitioner on 34.6.2005 stating therein that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac) as earnest money for the property which the complainant has to arrange for the petitioner but subsequently cheque was dishonoured and FIR was lodged. After registration of the case, the petitioner filed pre-arrest bail, which was confirmed on the basis of compromise settlement vide order dated 13.8.2005 by the learned Lower Court. Thereafter complainant filed application for cancellation of the bail, which was allowed on 4.6.2006. Thereafter petitioner moved this Court for pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed, on 21.2.2006. The petitioner again moved an application after-arrest before the Sessions Judge, which was declined, vide order dated 14.7.2006. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; it is a case of further inquiry, the offence with which the petitioner is charged do not fall under the prohibitory clause; he is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition. _
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the petitioner issued a cheque as earnest money to the complainant prima facie which is not an obligation. The real intention of the parties with regard to the agreement would be determine by the trial Court after recording the evidence. The offence for which .the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation. To keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. '
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.