MEHTAB ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mehtab Ali, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a bounced cheque. The core legal question was whether, given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Lahore High Court observed that the First Information Report failed to mention the specific amount of the cheque in question. Furthermore, the Court noted that the cheque was issued three months prior to the reporting of the matter, the original cheque or its attested copy was absent from the record, and no bank official was cited as a witness. Finding these circumstances sufficient to warrant further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court held that a case for bail was made out. The principle laid down is that the absence of critical documentary evidence and the failure to establish the foundational facts of the alleged offence at the initial stage provide sufficient grounds to admit an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of the original cheque or an attested copy on the record constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is the failure to mention the specific cheque amount in the First Information Report a relevant factor for bail consideration?
- Can the absence of bank officials as witnesses in a case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 influence the court's decision on bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Mehtab Ali, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,7, registered at Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan, on 12-1-2005, for offences under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., the complainant gave more than Rs,74,00,000 to the petitioner as loan.
Thereafter, the petitioner issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant, which bounced and eases were registered against him. The petitioner also issued Cheque No,CD8479863 in favour of the complainant, which also bounced and the matter was reported to the police.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the amount of cheque has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. At all; perusal of the record reveals that the above mentioned cheque was issued on 15-9-2004, about three months prior to reporting of matter to the police; neither the cheque issued by the petitioner nor its attested copy is available on record of the case; and similarly not a single bank officer has been cited as witness. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of Rupees five lacs, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.