Farrukh Hameed vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly as the determination of the parties' true intentions regarding the underlying agreement remained a matter for the Trial Court to decide after recording evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where further detention is unnecessary.
- Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Farukh Hameed through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 294, dated 23.06.2005 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 23.06.2005 stating therein that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rup ees 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 13.08.2005 by the learned Lower Court. Thereafter complainant filed application for cancellation of the bail, which was allowed on 04.06.2006.
Thereafter petitioner moved this Court for pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed, on 21.02.2006. 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 y 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 does 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 3,0, 000/- (Rupees three lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.