KHADIM HUSSAIN vs STATE etc.
The petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of financial misconduct and the existence of other similar cases against him, particularly considering whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the complainant's narrative contained inconsistencies, including the implausibility of lending further funds after an initial default and discrepancies in the petitioner's alleged business dealings. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum punishment of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, it established that the mere pendency of other identical cases does not justify refusing bail unless the accused has been convicted in those matters. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted.
- Does the offence of dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the pendency of other similar criminal cases against an accused who has not been convicted?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's narrative regarding the financial transaction lacks corroborative proof and contains material inconsistencies?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 442 dated 01.09.2010 u/S. 489-F PPC registered at P.S City Sahiwal.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner borrowed Rs, 3,97,500/- from the complainant and issued cheque for the said amount but the same was dishonoured on presentation, hence, the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support 'of instant bail petition contends that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant. Four other FIRs of similar nature have already been registered against the petitioner in which he has been granted bail by this Court. It is argued that in the FIR No, 473 dated 02.08.2010 the complainant of instant FIR also levelled allegations that the petitioner borrowed six lacs from him and issued cheque dated 14.07.2010 while in the instant FIR cheque dated 17.04.2010 has been stated to be given which shows his mala fide. It is next contended that mere pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot disentitle him from concession of bail. No transaction of money ever took place between the parties. It is further argued that the complainant got registered instant case FIR against the petitioner on the instructions of the persons against whom the litigation is pending at Lahore. It is added that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this respect is placed upon 2010 M LD 1711. He has been behind the bars for the last two months and his further detention is not required for investigation purposes.
4. On the other hand, the learned ADPP for the state as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition on the grounds that there is no mala fide or malice on the part of complainant or police. Issuance of cheque has not been categorically denied by the petitioner. He has also not denied the signatures on the cheque. Four other cases of identical nature have already been registered against the petitioner, which shows that he is habitual offender.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The disputed cheque was dishonoured on 17.04.2010 while the matter was reported to police on 01.09.2010. The complainant also got registered another case FIR No 473 dated 02.08.2010 u/S. 489-F PPC against the petitioner at P.S Farid Town Sahiwal in which the cheque dated 14.07.2010 was dishonoured. In the said FIR the petitioner has been shown to be a property dealer while in the instant case he is alleged to be dealing in computer accessories. It is also not believable that after lending an amount to the petitioner, which was not returned, the complainant lent more amount to him. No proof has been placed on record, which could suggest that the complainant or his partner was purchasing computer accessories from the petitioner. There is also no proof that the complainant is partner of Zafar Iqbal, his maternal nephew. He has been behind the bars for the last two months and his further detention is not required for further investigation. Mere pendency of other cases of identical nature is no ground to refuse the bail unless accused is found convicted in any of them. The maximum punishment provided in Section 489-F PPC is three years, with does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200000/- (Two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.