MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged issuance of dishonoured cheques in a visa-related transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the investigation was complete and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner should be released on bail, emphasizing the fundamental principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court reiterated that for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the release of an accused on bail amount to an acquittal?
- Does an 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?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of petitioner who stands implicated in FIR No, 175/08 dated 01.04.2008 under Section 489-F, PPC registered at P.S. A-Division, Kasur.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, petitioner receivedRs, 4,90,000/- for Visa to send the complainant to Kuwait but neither Visa was issued to the complainant nor the above mentioned amount was returned to him. On demand of return of the above mentioned amount, petitioner issued Cheque No, 1572227 dated 15.02.2008 of Rs, 90,000/- and subsequently Cheque No, 1572228 dated 15.3.2008 of Rs, 400,000/-. Both the above mentioned cheques were dishonoured by the Bank.
3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2008 and since then he is behind the bars. The challan has already been submitted on 08.04.2008; therefore, petitioner is not required any more for the purpose of investigation etc. and offence does not fall, within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant vigorously opposed this bail application. According to him, the petitioner dishonestly issued two cheques on different dates which reflect his dishonesty and mala fide. According to him, there is sufficient incriminating material, against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence. The learned DPG also opposed the bail application.
4. I have heard and considered the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Whether the nominated person in FIR has committed an offence or not and whether he is guilty or innocent, is to be decided by the competent Court. Our criminal law is based on dictum that every one is innocent unless proved guilty by the Court. In view of the above principle, the police may collect incriminating material against the accused during the course of investigation but presumption of innocence still remains in favour of accused unless he is competently tried, convicted and sentenced by the competent Court. Even otherwise release of accused person on bail does, not amount his acquittal, but his judicial custody is transferred to a private person/surety who is bound to produce the accused person before the Court. Likewise, Section 497 Cr.P.C. itself has been divided, by the author of the law in two parts; one part covers those offences which are not covered by the prohibitory clause the other part relates to those offences which are covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Offences which fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. provide punishment of 10 years or above.
Section 497 Cr.P.C. has been interpreted by our superior Courts that Bail, in offences which are not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. is granted as a rule and refusal is an exception. The above practice is being consistently followed by our superior Courts.
5. Complying with the above principle and following the same practice, since the present case is not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., this bail application is allowed subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs, 4,00,000/- (four lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/Area Magistrate. Before parting with this order, the learned trial Court is directed to complete the trial as soon as possible.