ILYAS-UD-DIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ilyas-ud-Din, in relation to an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving dishonoured cheques. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail, given the dispute over whether the decretal amount regarding the dishonoured cheques had been fully satisfied through deposits made with the Nazir of the Court. The Court held that in the context of a pre-arrest bail application, it is not appropriate for the High Court to adjudicate upon the satisfaction of a civil decree or to determine the precise outstanding balance. The Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, ordered the release of the deposited funds to the complainant, and directed the complainant to pursue any remaining claims through execution proceedings before the appropriate civil court. The key principle laid down is that criminal courts exercising bail jurisdiction should avoid becoming forums for the adjudication of civil disputes or the execution of civil decrees.
- Is it appropriate for a court hearing a pre-arrest bail application to adjudicate whether a civil decree has been fully satisfied?
- Should a criminal court determine the outstanding balance of a dishonoured cheque claim when a civil decree already exists?
- Can a complainant be directed to pursue execution proceedings in a civil court for the balance of a claim while a criminal bail application is being disposed of?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Order XXXVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, C.J.-- Through this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Applicant Illyasuddin son of Abdul Hameed, has sought pre-arrest bail in crime No, 349/2006 P.S. Ferozabad, Karachi East, which relates to the commission of offence punishable under section 489-F P.P.C. On the filing of his bail application, the applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated. 4-5-2007, subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P & R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court, which order has been complied.
2. ' Thereafter, during the pendency of proceedings, as per mutual understanding between the applicant and the complainant, from time to time, applicant has deposited a total sum of Rs,230,000 with the Nazir of this Court towards the satisfaction of the claim of the complainant subject-matter of dishonored cheques.
3. ' Mr. Javed Musarrat, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the total sum due against the applicant is A Rs,300,000 but he has only deposited a sum of Rs,230,000 with the Nazir of this Court. The Receipt/pay orders of Rs,70,000 referred by the applicant for this claim of payment of remaining sum are not in connection with the present claim of the complainant, for which his suit for recovery, being Civil Suit No, 46 of 2006 instituted under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, has already been decreed.
4. ' Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque learned counsel for the applicant submits that upon deposit of Rs,230,000 with the Nazir of this Court together with the payment of Rs,70,000 as per other pay orders/receipt, the total decretal amount based on the dishonoured cheque has been paid by the applicant.
5. ' Be that as it may, while dealing with this pre-arrest bail application, it will not be appropriate for this Court to examine whether the decree has been satisfied as a whole or still some payment towards dishonoured cheques is outstanding against the applicant.
6. ' Keeping in view this aspect of the case, interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant is confirmed and this bail application is disposed of in terms that the sum of Rs,230,000 deposited by the applicant with the Nazir of this Court be released in favour of the complainant, and in case the complainant has any other claim still unsatisfied, he will peruse the execution proceedings before the civil Court, which will be able to decide whether the decree passed in favour of complainant has been wholly satisfied or it is to be executed for any sum still due under it.