MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque worth Rs. 2,50,000. The petitioner contended that the transaction involved a property dispute where the complainant had already recovered the amount by selling the plot to a third party, rendering the subsequent presentation of the cheque mala fide. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the issuance of the cheque was admitted and the challan had been submitted. The Lahore High Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, carries a maximum punishment of three years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further clarified that Section 489-F is intended to penalize the dishonest issuance of cheques and is not a mechanism for the recovery of money. Given that the petitioner had been in custody for four months and the challan was submitted, the Court granted post-arrest bail.
- Does the offence 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?
- Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to serve as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
- Can bail be granted in a case where the maximum punishment is three years and the challan has already been submitted?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Shafiq has moved this petition for the grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,590 dated 8-10-2010 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Ganj Mandi District Rawalpindi.
2. 2.Precise allegation against the petitioner is that on the basis of an agreement with regard to a plot, cheque worth Rs, 2,50,000 was issued by. the petitioner in favour of the complainant, which subsequently was dishonoured and instant case was registered.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that actually there was an agreement whereby petitioner sold the plot to the complainant and subsequently the complainant disagreed to purchase the plot and then an agreement was entered between the parties that till 25-8-2010 petitioner shall payback the amount, otherwise, the plot shall be sold to someone; that the complainant without waiting that target date himself sold the plot to Muhammad Siddique in the month, of June and recovered the amount but subsequently with mala fide presented the cheque before the bank and falsely got registered this report; that petitioner is behind the bais and he is no more required by the police; that offence is maximum punishable up to 3 years' R.I thus does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Prayed that bail be allowed.
4. 4.On the other hand, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that issuance of cheque is admitted and as the petitioner has knowingly issued the same that it would be dishonoured thus he committed the offence alleged against him and that challan has already been submitted in the learned trial Court. Prayed that bail petition be dismissed.
5. 5.I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. 6.The offence alleged is maximum punishable up to three years' A R.I, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. enacted to penalize a person who knowingly issues a cheque that it would be dishonoured, it is not a mechanism provided for the recovery of any amount on the basis of cheques which are negotiable instruments otherwise. In view of the circumstances, when the petitioner is detained in the lock up for the last about four months and challan has already been submitted in the court, this application is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing, bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 6 cases
- Nauman Qureshi vs State 2015-PHC
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs The STATE through Police Station Thothal Mirpur 2015 P Cr. L J 95
- ASIM ALI KHAN vs The STATE and another 2014 MLD 506
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs THE STATE and another 2012 P Cr. L J 1549
- MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 918
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE through Advocate General 2012 YLR 722