MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of cheque dishonour. The petitioner, who had been in custody for over one month, sought relief after the trial court denied his bail application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the investigation was complete, the petitioner was no longer required for further proceedings, and the offence did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of anticipatory punishment and that the grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that each criminal case must be adjudged based on its own unique facts and circumstances, distinguishing the present matter from the precedents cited by the prosecution.
- Is the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences considered the rule rather than the exception?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment in advance?
- Does the completion of an investigation and the fact that the accused is no longer required for further proceedings support the grant of bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Nawaz by way of the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 420 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station, Kotwali, District Faisalabad on 4-5-2010.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as contained in the F.I.R is that he as surety of one Muzammal Fazal Abbas gave two cheques valuing Rs,2,50,000 each to the complainant, which on presentation were dishonoured.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he statedly is behind the bars for more than one month. The investigation is complete and he is no more required for any further purpose of the same,. The bail cannot be withheld as punishment in advance. The offence complained of does not attract the prohibition as contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the case Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), it has been- held that grant of bail in such-like case is a rule and refusal an exception. He is stated to be previous non-convict. In such circumstances, I do not find any exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of the relief to him.
4. It may be mentioned here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad while declining him the relief has relied upon the case of Muhammad Ayyub v. The State (2007 YLR 3095 Lahore) and Saman Imtiaz v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 805 Lahore). I am afraid that both the above cases have not aptly been applied to his case in view of the above position of his case. It may be also mentioned here that the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case of Shameel Ahmad v. The State (2009 SCM R 174). The same is also not aptly applicable herein for the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the two cases. I may mention here that it is well-settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of it's own facts and circumstances and the facts of the two criminal cases seldom coincide.
5. For the above stated reasons in his matter, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.