NASEEM FAROOQ NIAZI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the dishonour of cheques. The applicant sought confirmation of bail, arguing that the underlying dispute was purely commercial in nature and that the complainant had already initiated a civil suit for recovery. The applicant further highlighted material discrepancies between the facts narrated in the First Information Report and those presented in the civil suit plaint regarding the transaction. The Court, upon reviewing the record and noting the variation in facts between the criminal and civil proceedings, held that the applicant was entitled to confirmation of bail. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted, subject to the condition that the applicant must associate with the investigation and attend trial proceedings, failing which the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly when overlapping with civil litigation, can be a valid ground for granting bail.
- Can a commercial dispute involving the dishonour of cheques be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does a material discrepancy between the facts in an FIR and a related civil suit plaint justify the confirmation of bail?
- Is the applicant's association with the investigation a mandatory condition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Applicant Naseem Farooq Niazi is facing trial, in Crime No, 67/09 of PS Mithadar under section 489-F, P.P.C. He was admitted to pre-arrest bail on 2-2-2009 on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R the allegations are that the accused against recoverable sum of Rs,1,700,000 for the supplies, issued the subject cheques which were dishonoured on presentation and therefore the said F.I.R was lodged.
3. ' It was contended by the learned counsel that a suit for recovery has also been filed by the complainant under the summary chapter being Suit No, 19/09 wherein the some deviations appear to have been made as to the facts leading to the issuance of the cheques. It was urged that a commercial dispute cannot be made subject matter of criminal prosecution.
4. ' Learned counsel for the complainant states that there is no denial of the fact that the said cheques were issued by the applicant pursuant to some commercial transaction between the parties.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
6. ' In view of the variation in the facts narrated in the F.I.R and the facts mentioned in the plaint of the above suit in respect of the same transaction I would confirm bail already granted to the applicant on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the order dated 2-2-2009. However, the applicant is to associate with the investigation of the case and to attend the proceedings without fail, otherwise the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Cited by 2 cases
- AMIN IQBAL vs The STATE 2013 YLR 2428
- ABDUL ZAHOOR KHAN vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 747