KHALID SAJJAD vs THE STATE
This criminal matter arose from a petition seeking the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, following its dismissal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner faced allegations under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing seven dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 4,100,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in the presence of prima facie incriminating evidence and the alleged pendency of a civil suit against the complainant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding stock exchange investments or advance issuance of cheques. Furthermore, the pendency of a civil suit for recovery does not grant a licence to issue fake cheques consecutively. The Court affirmed that deliberate cheating was evident from successive dishonours, the prosecution had secured sufficient evidence under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alongside bank memos, and the petitioner had failed to join the investigation.
- Whether the pendency of a civil suit for recovery between the parties justifies or excuses the issuance of dishonoured cheques under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the accused fails to join the police investigation despite directions?
- Whether the consecutive issuance of multiple dishonoured cheques without documentary proof of an underlying legitimate transaction demonstrates deliberate cheating disentitling the accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Petitioner was refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 18-4-2006, in case against him vide F.I.R. No.137, dated 10- 3-2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Islampura, Lahore. He, thereafter, filed instant petition for the same relief and was conferred interim bail before arrest on 12-9-2006.
2. Charge against the petitioner is that he issued seven fake cheques, total value of those was Rs.41,00,000, which on presentation, to the drawee Bank, were dishonoured.
3. I have heard the leaed counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Petitioner could not substantiate his submissions of investment of any amount by the complainant for trading in the Lahore Stock Exchange or re-payment by him of the amounts given by the complainant. Similarly, there is no documentary proof with the petitioner that he had issued the cheques in question, in advance to the investment made by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that complainant owes an amount of. Rs.20,00,000, and he has already filed a suit for recovery against the complainant, but pendency of the suit would not give a licence to the petitioner to issue fake cheques of considerable huge amount of Rs.41,00,000, one after the other. All the cheques by the petitioner were dishonoured which has in it, the element of deliberate cheating. Prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating evidence in form of statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Besides documentary evidence in form of bank memos. The petitioner has not joined police investigation, in spite of direction in this behalf. He Mts been named and assigned specific rat in the and is prima facie connected with the offence charged.
4. For the reasons noted above, no case for confirmation of bail before arrest was made out and accordingly instant petition is dismissed. Interim bail before arrest granted to the petitioner on 12- 9-2006 is, re-called.
Cited by 1 case
- FARHAJ AHMED vs The STATE 2014 MLD 433