Muhammad Khan vs The State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant/accused, who was charged in an F.I.R. regarding the issuance of a dishonoured cheque for Rs. 1,200,000/- in a poultry business transaction. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to make out a case for leniency. The Court observed that prosecution witnesses had supported the case during the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the increasing prevalence of dishonoured cheque cases necessitates strict judicial handling to prevent the collapse of business trust. The key principle laid down is that the offence of issuing dishonoured cheques is a serious matter that undermines commercial stability, and courts should not grant bail routinely in such cases, as doing so would effectively encourage the commission of similar offences and undermine the rule of law.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving a dishonoured cheque where prosecution witnesses have supported the allegations during investigation?
- Should courts adopt a lenient approach towards bail in cases involving the issuance of false or dishonoured cheques?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IMAM BUX BALOACH, J. - Heard the arguments of the learned counsel tor the appellant and Mr. Zahoor Shah. A.P.G.
2. Prosecution case is that the applicant was having poultry business transaction with the complainant Shad Ali Khan. The applicant/accused has issued a cheque No. 1160139 to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 12,0, 000/- which was bounced. Ultimately the complainant lodged the F.I.R, bearing Crime No. 355/2010 at PS Sharafi Goth, East Zone, Karachi. During trial the applicant/accused was arrested. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, declined to grant bail to the applicant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.G.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has not issued such Cheque of Rs.
12,00,000/- to the complainant but a sum of Rs. 6,46,500/- of the complainant is outstanding against the applicant and a false case has been registered against the applicant/accused.
Admittedly during the course of investigation the witnesses have been examined under Section 161, Cr.P.C, and supported the prosecution case. Now-a-days, the issue of false cheques is increasing day by day and now persons are suffering difficulties/agonies and their business due to bouncing of the false cheques, collapsed. Such tendency is to be dealt with iron hands. If frequently bail is granted in such cases, it means, that a certificate is to be given to such person to commit such offences. The case has been challaned and is pending for trial, In such circumstances, applicant's case deserves no leniency. Hence I found no reason in this application which was dismissed by me by short order dated 28.02.2011 and these are the reasons for the same.