ASAD ALI vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 92 dated 15-1-2010 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Waris Khan Rawalpindi, involving the alleged issuance of two dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 250,000 each. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the issuance and dishonour of cheques not being denied and no proof of payment being presented. The court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that while an offence may not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is not a rule of universal application and each case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, particularly where the issuance of dishonoured cheques and lack of funds are established.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the issuance of cheques given as a guarantee and subsequently dishonoured sufficient ground for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of proof regarding payment in a business transaction disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 92 dated 15-1-2010 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at police station Waris Khan Rawalpindi.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he issued two cheques for the amount of Rs,250,000 each to the complainant, 'which were dishonoured on presentation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are wrong, baseless and based on ulterior motive. There was a business relationship between the parties and the petitioner issued the cheques as a guarantee and even the complainant has already received the major part of the amount of cheques but despite of payment the complainant has refused to return the alleged cheques. It is further contended that case of petitioner is one of further inquiry and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that issuance of cheques is not denied so the mala fide on the part of petitioner is quite clear and he is not entitled to bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that petitioner has not denied the issuance of cheques. However he has stated that the cheques were given in a business transaction as a guarantee and major part of amount has been paid but no proof of any payment or any business transaction has been brought on record. The cheques were dishonoured due to lack of funds and petitioner knowingly that he has no balance in the account issued the cheques so has defrauded the complainant. It is true that offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. yet the grant of bail to an accused in every case not hit by the prohibitory clause is not a rule of universal application because each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, petitioner is not entitled to bail. As such the instant petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- SHAHID HUSSAIN Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 88
- NADEEM ANSARI and another vs The STATE 2018.P Cr. L J 883
- NADEEM ANSARI Versus State 2018 PCrLJ 883