QUDRATULLAH vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 771/10 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala, relating to the issuance of dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that since the offense carried a maximum punishment of three years, it did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner could not be incarcerated indefinitely when no evidence had been recorded despite earlier directions for expeditious disposal. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial progress, coupled with the offense falling outside the prohibitory clause, constitutes sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the trial is delayed despite court directions?
- Does prolonged incarceration without recording any evidence warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 771/10 dated 2.10.2010 P.S. Civil Lines, Gujranwala, under Section 489-F PPC.
2. Allegedly the petitioner issued two cheques for the sum of Rs,3,30,000/-, which was due from him on account of pool money (Committee) and the same were dishonored on presentation in the Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is behind the bars w,e,f, 07.07.2010 and no substantial progress has been made towards conclusion of the trial in spite of clear direction given by this Court on 21.04.2011 for disposal of the case within two months.
4. The complainant states that his learned counsel has gone to Murree so an adjournment be granted. It is further stated that he has been attending the Court but his statement was not recorded.
5. The power of attorney on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant has not been filed so the request for adjournment is disallowed.
6. It is admitted that till today no evidence has been recorded. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 11 months. In spite of a clear direction given by this Court, the trial has not reached its logical end. The maximum punishment for commission of an offence punishable under Section 489-F PPC is three years and as such it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. It is stated that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under Section 489-F PPC but it is also admitted that he is a previous non-convict.
7. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest 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.