Muhammad Naeem vs The State And Another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 131, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of dishonoured cheques issued for the purchase of yarn. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of his prolonged incarceration and the nature of the offence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of involvement in other criminal cases and the nature of the offence charged. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for approximately six months, was a previous non-convict, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the mere pendency of other criminal cases does not automatically preclude the grant of bail to an accused person.
- Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases against an accused constitute a valid ground for refusing bail in a non-prohibitory offence?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused person be denied bail solely on the basis of being involved in other criminal cases?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J. - Petitioner Muhammad Naeem through the instant petition has prayed for the post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No. 131 registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad on 15.2.2010.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as per the F.I.RV is that he owned an amount of Rs. 5,72,000/- to the complainant on account of purchase of yarn (sooter) from him and in lieu thereof gave him three cheques of the said amount, which on presentation could not be encashed for want of funds.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and a previous non-convict, which, has not been controverted by the other side.
4. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. In the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34), their lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan have been pleased to hold that grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception. I hardly find any exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of bail to him.
6. However, it may be mentioned here that it, has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that he is involved in two other cases. I am afraid that mere pendency or involvement in other cases of the type cannot be a clog in the way of extension of the relief to him. In this regard reference is made to the case of "Kashif Khan v. The Stete" (2009 P.Cr.L.J. 1418).
7. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
8. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail , bonds in the sum of Rs! 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.