Pakistan Case Law
2008 YLR 1563

EHSAN ULLAH vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 YLR 1563
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,8709/B of 2007
Date2007-12-11
Judge(s)Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan
ResultBail refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 2,000,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in cases involving Section 489-F, which was enacted to curb the practice of issuing cheques with the intent to cheat. The Court observed that the petitioner's specific role in issuing the cheque, coupled with the intent to deceive, prima facie connected him to the offence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that every case must be adjudged on its own merits, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is bail in cases involving dishonoured cheques under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be granted as a matter of routine?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest baildishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal intentprohibitory clausebail discretion

ORDER

' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---Ehsan Ullah, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 154, dated 14-4-2007, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Qila Didar Singh, District Gujranwala for the allegation that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs, 20,00,000 to the complainant, which was dishonoured on its presentation, hence, this case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with local police. The petitioner was arrested iii this case on 16-4-2007 and since then he is behind the bars. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 23-7-2007 but no progress had taken place so far. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State opposed this bail petition contending that, the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of issuing a cheque of huge amount to the complainant, which was dishonoured; the material available on the record connects the petitioner with the alleged offence. Challan has been submitted in the Court and trial has commenced, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

4. Having given the profound considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

With specific role of issuing a cheque amounting to Rs, 20,00,000 to the complainant, which was dishonoured on its presentation, which prima facie directly connects him with the commission of alleged offence. Issuance of the cheque is not denied by the petitioner. The argument that in such like cases, bail should be granted as a rule has no force Section 489-F, P.P.C. Was added with the intent to curb the practice of issuing of cheques with the intention to cheat the others. The bails are being sought on the ground that, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Every case has to be adjudged according to its own merits.

' Sometime, the cheques are issued as a security and the same are presented without notices to the drawer. Here in this case, the cheque was issued knowing that there is no sufficient amount in the Bank and the steps were taken to ensure that the cheque would be encashed. The intention of the petitioner was to postpone the demand, for the time being by giving a cheque to the complainant with the knowledge that the same would be dishonoured. In such like cases, bail is not to be granted in routine.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is dismissed; however learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of three months, on receipt of this order, under intimation to the Deputy Register (judicial). Of this Court.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.