MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the period already spent behind bars. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the offence carried a maximum punishment of three years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry while no useful purpose would be served by indefinite detention. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, post-arrest bail should generally be granted as further inquiry is warranted.
- Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offence carries a punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the submission of a challan without trial progress justify keeping an accused in jail for an indefinite period?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail, in a case F.I.R. No, 427/2007, dated 25.11.2007, offence under Section, 489-F P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ghakhar Mandi, District Gujranwala, for the allegation that the petitioner issued one cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured, when the same was presented for encashment, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel, that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; and that the offence does not fall with the prohibition as contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for an indefinite period. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made. The offence with which the petitioner is charged entails punishment for three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.