SAEED ABBAS vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application whereby the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 277 of 2007 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station City, District Mianwali. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigation is complete, the challan has been submitted, and the disputed signatures on the cheques require verification. The court held that since the amount is not heavy, the maximum punishment is three years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and further incarceration would amount to premature punishment, the bail petition is liable to be accepted. The key principle laid down is that an accused should not be kept behind bars as a punishment prior to conclusion of the trial where the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and investigation is complete.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code when the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars as a premature punishment when the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,277 of 2007, dated 21-6-2005 offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station City, District Mianwali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is behind the bars since 13-12-2007 and it is not a case of heavy amount and case does not fall within prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he cannot be kept behind bars as a premature punishment; that from the day one the petitioner has been agitating that the cheques in question are not containing the signatures of the petitioner but same fact has not being verified during the investigation.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed this bail petition and states that petitioner had defrauded the complainant and he is not entitled to grant of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the record, I find that this is not a case of heavy amount and punishment provided for this offence is three years, which does not fall outside the prohibition contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Investigation qua him is complete. Challan has been submitted in Court. The Investigating Officer has not verified denial of signatures on the alleged cheque in the investigation. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars as premature punishment.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.