MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs THE STATE
This is a petition for pre-arrest bail arising out of a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the dispute arose from business transactions and a civil suit was already pending between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the matter was primarily of a civil nature, and since the petitioner volunteered to pay the disputed amount in court subject to the outcome of the civil suit, his intended arrest would only cause unnecessary harassment. Consequently, the court accepted the pre-arrest bail petition, laying down the principle that where a criminal case under Section 489-F stems from a commercial dispute and the civil liability is provisionally secured or addressed before the court, pre-arrest bail should generally be granted to prevent unjustified harassment.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the dispute arises out of business transactions and is primarily of a civil nature?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit between the parties influence the grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving dishonoured cheques?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail upon volunteering to pay the disputed amount subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner Muhammad Sarfraz seeks his pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R.
No.820/2008, dated 28-10-2008., registered in Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore, under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the allegations levelled by the complainant against the present petitioner in the F.I.R.
Are that the said petitioner gave him two Cheques bearing No.71052837 and 71052838 of Rs.50,000 each, which were dishonoured by the concerned Bank, when presented for encashment, due to insufficient funds. The complainant contended that he contacted the accused/present petitioner after bouncing of the afore-mentioned cheques but he refused to pay the disputed amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was business relations between the petitioner and the complainant and the cheques in dispute were issued against purchase of cement but subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties on 29-2-2008 whereby Rs.50,000 was paid to the complainant. He further submits that through a second compromise dated 9-4-2008, an additional amount of Rs.70,000 was paid and presently only Rs.20,000 is outstanding against the present petitioner. He argued that the matter in dispute is also pending adjudication in a Civil Court and the punishment of the offence alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner is only three years. Lastly, he contended that grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the cheques in dispute.
Learned counsel for the complainant also denied the second agreement dated 9-4-2008 whereby the present petitioner allegedly paid an amount of Rs.70,000 to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the present petitioner and the present petitioner is not entitled to extra-ordinary concession of-fire-arrest bail.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. During, the course of arguments, the petitioner volunteered to pay an amount of Rs.90,000 (Rs.65000 in hard cash and Rs.25,000 in the form of prize bonds) to the complainant, today, in the Court, subject to the condition that the complainant/Mian Manzoor Hussain would be bound to refund the afore-mentioned amount, in case the suit for rendition of account and return of original document, which has been filed by the present petitioner/Muhammad Sarfraz against the complainant in a civil Court, is decided against him. The pendency of a civil suit prima facie establishes that there was some business transaction and the matter in dispute is primarily of a civil nature. Furthermore, in view of the payment of Rs.90,000 (Rs.65,000 in hard cash and Rs.25,000 in the form of prize bonds) by the petitioner to the complainant, today, in the Court, subject to the aforesaid condition, the intended arrest of the petitioner by the police would be of no use except causing unnecessary harassm ent and humiliation to the present petitioner, at the hands of the Investigation Agency.
7. Consequently, the petition for pre-arrest bail, filed by Muhammad Sarfraz, is accepted subject to submission of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.