ZIA ULLAH vs THE STATE and others
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under sections 3 and 4 of The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioner, accused of running an illegal private money lending business involving interest against cheques and property transfers, was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the transaction and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that voluntary transactions involving other safeguards do not strictly prohibit certain arrangements under the Act, making the case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the key principle that the gravity of an offence is to be determined at trial and that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment.
- Whether an accused involved in private money lending is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls under further inquiry?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment prior to the conclusion of the trial?
- Do voluntary transactions involving security safeguards fall within the total prohibition of recovery of interest under The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007?
- Section 3, The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act 2007
- Section 4, The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act 2007
- Section 2(c), The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act 2007
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.80 of 2012 dated 8-2-2012, under sections 3/4 of The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007 (Act VI of 2007) registered at Police Station, Ali Pur Chattha District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the facts narrated in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant was in need of money for his business, who contacted the petitioner to lend him Rs. 3,00,000 against which he had voluntarily handed over a cheque of Rs.6,00,000 as guarantee to him along with a plot of 10 Marlas transferred in the name of the wife of the petitioner. This concluded the business transaction. However, after a while the petitioner started blackmailing the complainant and filed an application for registration of criminal case under section 489-F, P.P.C. For the cheque already given by the complainant to the petitioner. According to the complainant the petitioner is running money lending business for interest against cheques.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the complainant wanted to escape from his liability which he has undertaken in the form of cheque given to the petitioner. Further contended that the order for registration of criminal case in hand by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A. No.173-L of 2012. It was lastly contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 3-3-2012 and no incriminating material was recovered from him during investigation at the instance of the petitioner; that further incarceration of the petitioner in Jail will not serve useful purpose of the prosecution as the challan has already been submitted in the trial Court.
4. Conversely, the learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for grant of post-arrest bail by submitting that money lending is against injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah and that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497. Cr.P.C.; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The newly-introduced sections 3 and 4 of The Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007 (Act VI of 2007) totally prohibits the recovery of interest as defined therein. In section 2 clause
(c) of the said Act it does not prohibit the other possible safeguards, which lender may be resort to in the form of excessive money. All these transactions being voluntary in nature hold both the parties equally responsible. In these circumstances, case of the petitioner has become that of further inquiry and his further, incarceration in Jail will not serve any useful purpose of the prosecution. ANeedless to observe that gravity of offence can only be determined at the time of trial and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
7. For what has been disccsse d above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to 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 the learned trial Court.