MUHAMMAD ASIM SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Asim Siddiqui in respect of FIR No. 195 of 2005 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shadman, Lahore, following the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the findings of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that where the investigating officer concludes upon a thorough investigation that the dispute essentially involves rendition of accounts and that the complainant actually owes money to the petitioner, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when the police investigation reveals that the monetary transaction underlying a dishonoured cheque dispute stems from a rendition of accounts and the accused's culpability requires further inquiry.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the investigation reveals that the dispute is one of rendition of accounts?
- Does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigating officer concludes that the complainant owes money to the accused?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the basis of an undertaking given by the accused to pay any amount found due during the investigation?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Asim Saddiqui son of Zahid Hussain Saddiqui, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 195 of 2005, dated 26-5-2005, registered at Police Station Shadman, Lahore for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Babar Khan, Sales and Recovery Manager of Ghauri Chicks, Lahore was involved in the business of chicks with the petitioner; a cheque for Rs,1,76,000 had been handed over by him to the petitioner; on presenting the said cheque the same had been dishonoured. As a result whereof the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail. He was allowed ad interim bail, however, his bail application was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, vide order, dated 14-7-2005. Hence this petition.
4. On 21-7-2005 when the petitioner had been admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court he had given a solemn undertaking that if during the course of investigation any amount was found to be due against him he would pay the same without any hesitation. It was primarily this undertaking which had prompted me to extend him extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Syed Ahmad Raza S.-I., Incharge Investigation, Shadman, Lahore.
6. At the very outset the Investigating Officer submitted that he had conducted a thorough investigation in the matter and was of the opinion that basically, it was a matter of rendition of accounts between the parties who had been indulging in colossal monetary transactions. He further added that during the course of investigation he had come to the conclusion that it is the complainant who owes some money to the petitioner.
7. In view of the afore-said opinion rendered by the Investigating Officer the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the State has not apposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bailgranted to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order, dated 21-7-2005 is here by confirmed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs STATE and another PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 766
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 1435