CH. FAROOQ ALAM vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ch. Farooq Alam, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the offence and his incarceration period, despite allegations of his involvement in other similar cases. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had not been convicted in any of the other cases cited by the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception, provided there is no prior conviction record to disentitle the accused.
- Is the grant of bail a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere involvement in other similar cases, without conviction, disentitle an accused to bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Ch. Farooq Alam seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No 1304/2011, dated 12.12.2011, under Section 489-F, PPC, Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore. The allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque of Rs,4,00,000/- to the complainant, which on its presentation in the Bank, was not en-cashed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition, contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.5.2012; that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall, within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, petitioner is entitled to bail.
3 The learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail petition, contends that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the cheque in question, therefore, the provisions of Section 489-F, PPC are fully attracted; that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature and that the petitioner is not entitled to bail but the learned DPG has conceded that although petitioner in involved in other cases of similar nature but there is no conviction in any case.
4. Heard. I have noted that an amount of Rs,4,00,000/- is involved in this case but the fact remains that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.5.2012. Apart from above, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases grant of bail is a right while refusal is an exception. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner is also involved in three other cases of similar nature but the learned DPG has conceded that the petitioner has not been convicted in any such case. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.