MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE

ORDER

' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of petitioner who stands implicated in F.I.R. No,175 of 2008 dated 1-4-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station "A" Division Kasur.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., petitioner received Rs,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 15-2-2008 of Rs,90,000-and subsequently Cheque No,1572228, dated 15-3-2008 of Rs,4,00,000. Both the above mentioned cheques were dishonoured by the Bank.

3. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was arrested on 4-4-2008 and since then he is behind the bars. The challan has already been submitted on 8-4-2008, 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 D.P.-G. Also opposed the hail application.

4. I have heard and considered the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

Whether the nominated person in F.I.R. 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; on 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 C 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.