NASIR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two pre-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant, Nasir Ahmed, in relation to two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) registered for the offence of dishonouring cheques, punishable under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail despite the existence of evidence regarding the issuance of the dishonoured cheques. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that while the grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is generally a rule, the increasing trend of cheating and fraud necessitates a stricter approach. Finding that the applicant admitted to issuing the cheques and that the allegations were supported by the police record, the Court concluded that no mala fide could be attributed to the complainant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail applications and recalled the interim bail orders.
- Is an applicant entitled to pre-arrest bail for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the issuance of the dishonoured cheques is admitted?
- Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 guarantee the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be refused in cases involving the increasing trend of cheating and fraud despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this order, I propose to dispose of both the above titled pre arrest bail applications of the applicant, which relate to Crime Nos.2 of 2008 and 4 of 2008 of Police Station Aziz Bhatti, for commission of offence punishable under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. ' In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 1-1-2008 complainant Usman son of Muhammad Ibrahim has lodged these FIRs against the applicant giving therein the details of the fraud committed by him by issuing two cheques, one of Rs,2,25,000 being subject matter of Crime No,2/2008, and the other of Rs,1,80,000, being subject matter of crime No,4/2008, which were dishonoured on presentation in Bank. In both these cases applicant was admitted to interim pre- arrest bail vide order dated 28-4-2008.
3. ' The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence for which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And it is yet to be seen whether the applicant has committed the offence attributed to him or his involvement in two crimes is due to mala fide of the complainant. In such circumstances, he submits that the interim pre arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 28-4-2008 may be confirmed.
4. ' Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, learned Addl. A.-G. Sindh after going through the police papers submits that the two dishonoured cheques, admittedly issued by the applicant are available in the police papers, which fully corroborate the case of the complainant that applicant has committed offence punishable under section 489-F, P.P.C. Therefore, no mala fide can be assigned to the complainant or the police in the involvement of the applicant in the commission of such crimes.
5. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. The Courts, while dealing with such type of cases cannot remain oblivious of the increasing trend of cheating and fraud with innocent people, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the lodging of F.I.R. By the complainant against the applicant is male fide. There is no denial of the fact that the two bounced cheques were issued by the applicant to the complainant. In such circumstances, the allegations made in the F.I.R. Cannot be readily discarded to accommodate the applicant to be admitted to pre arrest bail. It may not be out of place to mention here that grant of bail in the cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is a rule and refusal is an exception, but in the present scenario when the trend of such crimes has increased considerably, in my opinion the applicant is not entitled for confirmation of interim pre- A arrest bail.
7. ' This being the position, both these pre arrest bail applications are dismissed and the orders for grant of pre arrest bail dated 28-4-2008 are recalled.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State 2022 MLD 1065
- MUHAMMAD ATIF vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 621