ABDEMOMIN THAKUR vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 1276 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, contending that the criminal proceedings were initiated due to mala fides and that the underlying dispute was purely civil in nature, supported by bank statements indicating prior payments to the complainant. The petitioner further alleged that the disputed cheque was obtained forcibly by the police. Conversely, the State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's involvement in multiple similar cases, suggesting a pattern of habitual offending and fraudulent conduct. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the evidence of the dishonoured cheque and the allegations of habitual criminal conduct. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the bank payments covered the disputed cheque, which was issued after the documented transactions. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any formal complaint regarding the alleged forced extraction of the cheque. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that bail is not a matter of course when prima facie evidence of criminal liability exists.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged bank payments predate the issuance of the disputed cheque?
- Does the existence of multiple similar criminal cases against an accused impact the court's discretion in granting bail?
- Can a plea of forced extraction of a cheque be entertained in bail proceedings without prior formal complaint?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.---Trough this petition Abd-eMomin Thakur petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1276 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore on 24-11-2007 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant and in connivance with the local police. In fact the petitioner has a business transaction with the complainant and according to the agreement he was regularly paying profit in such business. In this behalf he relies on a Bank statement produced before the Investigating Officer and according to him the amount more than alleged in the F.I.R.
Had already been paid to the complainant. The statement was handed over to the Investigating Officer on the last date of hearing in the Court to verify whether the fact narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct or not. The Investigating Officer has got verified that statement from the Bank and informed that these payments are upto 6-7-2007 but the disputed cheque was issued on 5-8-2007 and this cheque has no nexus with the previous payment made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the disputed cheque was obtained forcibly by the police in police station at the time when the petitioner appeared after getting interim pre-arrest bail so as to join the investigation, therefore, the cheque in question cannot be used against him. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and the case being of civil nature cannot be dragged into litigation on criminal side.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel of the complainant states that the petitioner issued cheque on 5-5-2008 which was dishonoured and dishonesty of the petitioner is proved by his conduct. He further submits that he is also facing five other cases of similar nature in different police stations vide F.I.R. No.20, dated 6-1-2008, Police Station Badami Bagh in which the amount involved was Rs.26,00,000, F.I.R. No.1135, dated 17-10-2007 Police Station Civil Lines amount involved was Rs.9,00,000, F.I.R. No.1284, dated 28-11-2007 Police Station Civil Lines amount involved was Rs.5,00,000, F.I.R. No.104, dated 25-1-2008 Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore amount involved was Rs.10,00,000 and F.I.R. No.43, dated 15-1-2008 Police Station Ichhra amount involved was Rs.10,00,000. According to learned Deputy Prosecutor-General the petitioner is a habitual offender and he committed fraud with different people to grab money from them.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that F.I.R. No.20, dated 6-1-2008 Police Station Badami Bagh was cancelled because the petitioner has made payment in the case. He further submits that F.I.R. No. 135, dated 17-10-2007 Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore was also cancelled.
5. After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have found that the disputed cheque was issued on 5-8-2007 and the plea with regard to payment made by the petitioner, effected through Bank transaction, is not established from the record because the statement submitted by the petitioner is much prior to issuance of disputed cheque which have been properly investigated by the Investigating Officer from the Bank record. So far as the fact that the disputed cheque was obtained forcibly is concerned the petitioner has not made any complaint in this behalf uptil now. In view of above I feel no ground for extending the concession of post-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner. This petition is dismissed.