SULEMAN JALIL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Suleman Jalil, in connection with F.I.R. No. 174/2009, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core allegation against the petitioner involved the misappropriation of funds and the subsequent issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, arguing that on the date the cheque was allegedly issued, he was incarcerated in connection with a separate criminal case. The court examined the discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque's issuance and the petitioner's documented detention. Finding that this discrepancy could not be reconciled by the prosecution and that the possibility of mala fide on the part of the complainant could not be excluded, the court held that the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant factual inconsistencies, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does a significant discrepancy between the alleged date of a cheque's issuance and the accused's period of incarceration constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the element of mala fide cannot be excluded from the prosecution's case?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioner has applied for the pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,174/2009 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had been given, for the purpose of sale, Sims and cards and he misappropriated an amount of Rs,80,000 and later on issued a cheque for the same, which was dishonoured.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, which is evident from the fact that the cheque was stated to have been issued on 18-11- 2008, whereas on that date, the petitioner was behind the bars in another case registered against him.
4. The learned D.D.P.P. Has opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner could have issued the cheque, when he was not yet behind the bars.
5. Be that as it may, the discrepancy A regarding the date of issuance of cheque and the detention of the petitioner behind the bars at that time, is not reconciled during the arguments or record. It is, therefore, seems to be a case of further inquiry. The same circumstances may also tend to show that the element of mala fide may not be excluded in this case.
6. Keeping in view the above circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed provided he submits fresh bail bonds in the amount of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Judicial Magistrate.
Cited by 1 case
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State 2013 YLR 566, 2013 P.C.T.LR. 626