MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of being a proclaimed offender, given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting his incarceration period of approximately five months and his status as a previous non-convict. The Court emphasized that since the offence was outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an accused person otherwise entitled to bail cannot be denied liberty solely on the ground of alleged absconsion, especially when the accused offers an explanation for their presence, as the factum of absconsion does not constitute an exceptional circumstance sufficient to warrant the refusal of bail in such cases.
- Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 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 ground of having been a proclaimed offender if the offence is outside the prohibitory clause?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Riaz through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,445 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station Tulamba, District Khanewal on 19-10-2008.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) owed an amount of Rs,1,00,000 to the complainant in respect of gold articles purchased by him from him (complainant) and he in lieu thereof issued him cheque, dated 1-9-2008, drawn on HBL Tulamba Branch, which on presentation could not be enchased. Hence the case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars since 8-4-2009. This period is spared over about five months. He is also stated to be previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
4. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34), it has been held that grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.
5. It has been argued by the prosecution side that he had remained a proclaimed offender and this is an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief to him. I may say here in this regard that if case of an accused, when may otherwise, become of bail, he then cannot be deprived of his liberty simply for the reason that he had remained an absconder. It has been explained by his side that he has not absconded and in fact had remained in his house and the proceedings showing him to be so are fictitious. In view of this explanation, I do not find the factum of his alleged absconsion to be an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief to him.
6. In view of these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him 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.