SAJID SAEED HUSSAIN SINDHU vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 587 of 2007 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad, following the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail where a forensic report indicated that the signature on the disputed cheque did not tally with his specimen signatures and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that prima facie the cheque was not signed by the petitioner, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and no custodial investigation was required as the documentary evidence had already been collected by the police. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where documentary evidence prima facie exonerates the accused and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a forensic report shows the signature on the disputed cheque does not match?
- Does the offence 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?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when documentary evidence has already been collected and the accused's custodial investigation is not required?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.587 of 2007, dated 11-9-2007, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of the complainant was dishonoured when presented to the Bank for encashment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a number of cheques of the petitioner were stolen and in the said regard concerned Bank had also been intimated; that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner; that the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 489-F, P.P.C. And that the petitioner was not required for any further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner lodged case F.I.R. No. 1202 of 2007 at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad against Rana Zahid, his ex-employee for stealing some cheques including the one which is subject-matter of the instant case. The documents on the record reveal that the petitioner had intimated the Bank regarding theft of cheques and had also instructed the Bank not to encash cheques including the one issued in the name of the complainant. Prima facie the assertion of the petitioner that cheque had been stolen appears to be correct. Further, the cheque in question was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of the petitioner and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 13-12-2007 reveals that the signatures on the cheque in question does not tally with the specimen signatures of the petitioner. Thus, the report has been returned in the negative which implies that prima facie the cheque in question was not issued/signed by the petitioner. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Since the evidence is documentary in nature which has already been taken into possession by the police, therefore, the corpus of the petitioner is not required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 29-10-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.