SIKANDAR ZAMAN vs THE STATE and others
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the appellant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 100,000 issued in favour of his wife. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the allegation of forged signatures, and the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, holding that since the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause, trial was not concluded within the timeframe directed by the High Court, and the dispute essentially stemmed from strained matrimonial relations, further incarceration was not warranted. The key principle laid down is that bail is to be liberally granted in offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause, particularly when trial delays occur and the dispute arises from matrimonial discord.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a matrimonial dispute involving a financial transaction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant post-arrest bail when the trial is not concluded expeditiously?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 140 of 2008 dated 23- 3-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Garden Town, Lahore, wherein it-was alleged that the cheque issued by the petitioner amounting to Rs, 100,000 in favour of complainant/petitioner wife was dishonoured.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the allegation is false; that petitioner did not sign the cheque; that on account of strained relations, the complainant forged petitioner's signature and brought the matrimonial dispute in the domain of criminal law. Adds that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposed the petition by submitting that the trial is in progress and that Some witnesses have already been recorded but on courts query he is not in a position to- say as to when the trial is likely to conclude. Even otherwise, the direction given by the High Court for conclusion of trial within three months has not been complied with. The dispute is between husband and wife and the offence alleged does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, he shall be released on bail.
Cited by 3 cases
- Shams Ur Rehman vs The State and another 2024 YLR 978
- Mohammad Mashkoor Khan vs The State & another 2021 IHC 14
- Ahmar Altaf vs The State and another 2020 YLR 2294