Rana MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Rana Muhammad Ramzan seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 125 registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Dunya Pur District Lodhran, involving the issuance of dishonoured cheques for fertilizer and spray taken on credit. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial has already commenced. The court held that the petition should be accepted and granted post-arrest bail to the accused. The key principles laid down are that grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the mere involvement of a huge amount is not a ground to refuse bail, and that an accused otherwise fit for bail cannot be denied the relief merely because the trial has commenced.
- Whether bail should be granted when an alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the involvement of a huge financial amount sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be refused to an otherwise eligible accused merely on the ground that the trial has commenced?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.-- Petitioner Rana Muhammad Ramzan through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,125 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station City Dunya Pur District Lodhran on 3-5-2009.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as per the F.I.R. Is that he on credit took fertilizer and spray of the value of Rs,4,49,885 from the complainant and in lieu thereof issued him cheques dated 16-2- 2009 drawn on Bank of Punjab, which on presentation could not be encashed for closure of the account.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and a 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. I hardly find any exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of the relief to him.
5. However, it may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the amount as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is huge one. I am afraid that mere involvement of huge amount is hardly a ground to refuse the relief to him. He has also contended that his trial has commenced and three witnesses have been examined in the same and the next date in it is 7-11- 2009.
6. It is needless to mention here that case of an accused, when otherwise, may be found fit for bail, he then cannot be refused such relief on account of the commencement of trial. In this regard, the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585, can be referred with advantage.
7. In these circumstances of the case, 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 tarnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lack only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the conclusion of his trial as much as is possible under intimation to the Deputy Registrar of this Court.