ASHRAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and others
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 1,800,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations, the investigative findings, and his contradictory stances regarding a lost cheque book. The Lahore High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and, despite the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially where the accused makes false representations and is directly nominated with a specific role supported by the investigation. The court recalled the interim pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that previous non-conviction and non-inclusion in the prohibitory clause do not automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in the face of incriminating investigative findings and conflicting pleas.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does previous non-conviction alone entitle an accused person to pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused person entitled to pre-arrest bail when taking self-contradictory pleas regarding a lost cheque book?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The petitioner seeks his bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,32/2010 dated 14-1-2010 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line, Lahore.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque of Rs.18,00,000 which was dishonoured on its presentation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed the offence and the instant case has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. The petitioner has never issued the cheque. He claims that his cheque book was lost in the year 2007 and the petitioner lodged Rapt with the police station as well as with the bank authorities that his cheque book has been displaced somewhere but later on it revealed that the complainant has obtained the cheque book and has prepared this forged cheque in the name of petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is previous non-convict and a respectable and law abiding citizen of this country. He is ready to furnish surety bond to the satisfaction of this Court. He further contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, ad-interim bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition and has contended that version of the petitioner is self-contradictory. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which could not be extended to the petitioner who has deprived the complainant from a huge amount of Rs.18,00,000, therefore, interim bail granted to the petitioner be recalled.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The record reveals that the petitioner applied for his post arrest bail before Judicial Magistrate which was accepted on 3-2-2010 but thereafter vide order dated 15-5-2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore cancelled the bail of petitioner and the petitioner instead of surrendering, escaped and filed the instant petition for bail before arrest. On 21-5-2010 the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Record reveals that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role. The huge amount of Rs.18,00,000 is involved. During investigation, I.O. Has reached the conclusion after due investigation that the petitioner issued the cheque to the complainant. Further contention of petitioner is self- contradictory because on 25-6-2007 he lodged Rapt No,41 with Police Station Civil Line and contended that his bag has lost in which his identity card was also lost but he did not mention about his cheque book. Later on he changed his version and contends that the complainant has stolen his cheque book. The petitioner has negated his version while making false representation.
Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which-could not extended in such like cases. Though section 489-F P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause but no one can claim bail as a matter of right. Similarly, previous non-conviction is also not a ground for the grant of bail.
7. In the circumstances, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21-5-2010 is hereby recalled.