MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs STATE etc.
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail arising from an FIR registered for the issuance of a dishonoured cheque given for the purchase of buffaloes. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the subject-matter cheque is already the subject of a pending civil suit filed prior to the FIR and an injunctive order regarding its encashment had been issued by a civil court, coupled with the statutory delay in the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal matter arises out of a commercial transaction that is already sub judice before a civil court with an injunctive order regarding the disputed instrument, and where the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration without the trial commencing, a case for further inquiry and bail is made out.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the cheque forming the basis of the criminal case is already the subject matter of a pending civil suit filed prior to the FIR?
- Does the issuance of an injunctive order by a civil court regarding the encashment of a disputed cheque provide grounds for bail in criminal proceedings arising from the same instrument?
- Is prolonged incarceration coupled with the non-commencement of the trial a valid ground for releasing an accused on bail?
ORDER
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.--Seeks bail in a case registered vide FIR No, 117 dated 6.4.2010 at Police Station Iqbal Abad, District Rahim Yar Khan on the statement of Rafique Ahmad.
2. The prosecution story as given in the FIR briefly stated is that petitioner purchased 14 buffaloes from the complainant in the year 2009 and issued a cheque of Rs, 1200,000/- which was dishonored.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had business relations with Hamilliya Feeds; that the case registered is part of frivolous litigation launched by Hamilliya Feeds; that when the issue of rendition of accounts cropped up, petitioner filed a civil suit and the said company brought the matter in criminal domain by having six false cases registered against him and the instant case is part of the said campaign. Adds that this Court has already granted bail to the petitioner in Crl. P. No, 590-L of 2010 (FIR No, 143 dated 22.3.2010 P.S. City 'A' Division, District Rahim Yar Khan) in which complainant is Hamilliya Feeds. He lastly contended that that the cheque in the instant case is subject matter of a civil suit filed by the petitioner and that petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and the trial is not in sight.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that complainant has nothing to do with Hamilliya Feeds; that he has his independent grievance against the petitioner; that petitioner's counsel had made a statement before the Additional District and Sessions Judge to the effect that if the complainant takes oath on Quran, he will return the entire amount but despite the oath the undertaking was not honored.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor. General opposed the petition by submitting that huge amount of money is involved and at this stage, petitioner has no case for bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also learned Law Officer, we are of the view that admittedly the cheque, subject matter of this petition, is also subject-matter of a pending suit which suit was filed before the registration of instant FIR and even presentation of cheque in question for encashment. It has also been brought to our notice that a civil Court in the pending civil suit had also issued an injunctive order with regard to encashment of the cheque. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and the trial has yet to commence.
7. In the afore-referred circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. Therefore, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, he shall be released on bail.
Cited by 2 cases
- Malik KHIZAR HAYAT vs STATE etc. PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1041
- Malik KHIZAR HAYAT vs THE STATE and others 2011 YLR 1777