FARRUKH HAMEED vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque issued as earnest money for a property transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the transaction and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the cheque was issued as earnest money which prima facie did not constitute an enforceable obligation in the manner alleged, that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation, and that keeping him incarcerated indefinitely served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and further inquiry is warranted regarding the true intention of parties to a transaction, bail should ordinarily be granted.
- Whether the issuance of a cheque as earnest money for a property transaction constitutes an obligation attracting Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no further investigation is required?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Farrukh Hameed through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,294 dated 23-6-2005 under section 489-F, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi.
2. The prosecution case is that complainant Saeed Akhtar lodged F.I.R. Against the petitioner on 23- 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 F.I.R. 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 determined 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.
Cited by 1 case
- IMRAN LATIF vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 556