QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN QURESHI vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Qamar-uz-Zaman Qureshi, against the State. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has established sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a dishonoured cheque and allegations of theft and false implication. The court held that no case for pre-arrest bail was made out, noting that the considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are entirely different, that there appeared to be no ulterior motive or mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner, and that the bank had returned the cheque due to insufficient funds rather than forged signatures. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the considerations for the grant of pre-arrest bail are different from those for post-arrest bail?
- Does the return of a cheque by a bank due to insufficient funds without any allegation of forged signatures warrant pre-arrest bail?
- Whether a petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the complainant was an employee of the petitioner; that complainant stole the cheque, filled the same and then submitted in the bank; that concocted and false story has been given in the F.I.R,; that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that three co- accused named in the F.I.R. Have been declared innocent; that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub clause 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to bail.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant present in court can state on oath that he never knew the petitioner prior to this bargain; that this is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2006 Lahore 302, 2007 YLR 309, 2008 YLR 760 and 2009 PCr.LJ 825.
3. Learned DPG adds that in fact the cheque was not dishonoured by the bank but it was stated that the funds are insufficient in the account of the petitioner and bank never objected that the signatures of the petitioner are forged one.
3-A. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no ulterior motive or mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The cheque in question has been returned to the complainant by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. It was never stated by the bank that signatures of the petitioner are forged one. This is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out. This petition stands dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ATIF vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 621