GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner should be granted bail, noting that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense is three years. Furthermore, the Court observed that the dispute originated from a business transaction, for which civil litigation was already pending between the parties. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, no recovery was pending, and continued incarceration would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the underlying dispute is a business transaction subject to pending civil litigation?
- Does the fact that an accused is no longer required for investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F . I. R. No . 22 , dated 6- 2-2007 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent in this case, that no recovery has been effected from him that it is business transaction and in this connection civil litigation is pending before the competent Court; that the petitioner is in jail for two months; that the maximum punishment for the offence is 3 years and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutrix General has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Heard, Record perused.
5. Admittedly the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr . P . C . The maximum punishment of the offence is only 3 years. The petitioner is in jail since two months. The dispute arose on account of business transaction and in this connection civil litigation is pending between the parties -before the competent Court. The petitioner is no more required by the police and nothing is to be recovered from him. A Keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case and it amounts to punishment before the conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1004