AJAB KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant, Ajab Khan, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the accused, Muhammad Ramzan, by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan, in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was illegal and warranted cancellation, particularly given the dispute over the cheque, friendly relations, and a pending civil recovery suit. The Peshawar High Court held that the case of the accused prima facie fell within the scope of further inquiry due to factual denials and pending civil proceedings, and that none of the established grounds for bail cancellation were present. The court dismissed the bail cancellation application, establishing the principle that pre-arrest bail will not be interfered with or cancelled unless the bail-granting order is patently illegal, causes a miscarriage of justice, or specific supervening circumstances such as misuse of concession or tampering with evidence are shown.
- Whether the issuance of a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F PPC warrants pre-arrest bail when the underlying transaction and execution of the cheque are disputed?
- What are the primary grounds to be considered by a court while deciding an application for the cancellation of bail already granted?
- Does the simultaneous pendency of a civil recovery suit bar criminal proceedings for the dishonour of a cheque?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Aggrieved of the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.Khan whereby the accused/ ,respondent Muhammad Ramzan was granted pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 912 dated 05.10.2012 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Cantt: D.I.
Khan, the petitioner/complainant namely, Ajab Khan has filed this application for the cancellation of the same.
2. The allegations against the accused/respondent are that he issued a cheque Bearing No, 1400456 dated 20.6.2012 for an amount of Rs,5,70,000/- in favour of the petitioner which on presentation was dishonoured by the concerned bank due to insufficient amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of the learned lower Court granting pre-arrest bail to accused/respondent is patently illegal and is thus liable to be set aside.
He argued that from the available facts and circumstances of the case brought on record, the accused/respondent was reasonably linked with the commission of the offence and, therefore, he was not entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. He submitted that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the investigating agency to falsely implicate the accused/respondent in the case. The learned counsel thus requested for the cancellation of pre- arrest bail granted to the accused/respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent supported the impugned order of granting pre-arrest bail on' the grounds as enumerated therein.
5. The learned A.A.G on his turn also termed the impugned order to be in accordance with law.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. As per the record, the petitioner had submitted an application to the DSP, Saddar, D.I.Khan to the effect that he was having cordial relations with the accused/respondent and the latter requested him for a loan of Rs,5,70,000/- which was accordingly given by the petitioner keeping in view the friendly relations and the respondent had accordingly issued him a cheque for the said amount with the understanding that in case of his failure to pay the amount in question, the cheque could be encashed by the petitioner. On the failure of the accused/respondent to pay the loan amount, the petitioner deposited the cheque in his personal account which was not honoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the respondent's account. The petitioner has also instituted a recovery suit for a sum of Rs,6,70,000/- on the basis of a pronote allegedly executed by the accused/respondent in his favour. Undoubtedly, there is no embargo on an individual to press into service both criminal as well as civil proceedings against an accused-cum-borrower, but the denial on the part of the accused/respondent regarding the issuance of cheque, friendly relations with the petitioner and the pendency of the recovery suit with another amount of Rs,6,70,000/- take the matter to one of further inquiry and treated so by the learned lower Court in the impugned order.
8. From the available facts and circumstances of the case and tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record, case of the accused/respondent prima facie falls within the ambit of further inquiry and thus he was rightly held entitled to the, grant of pre-arrest bail.
9. Even otherwise, the following grounds are to be kept in view by the Court while cancelling the bail granted to an accused person:--
1. If the bail granting order is patently illegal and factually incorrect and has caused gross miscarriage of justice; Some fresh facts or material has been collected by the prosecution which may lead towards the guilt of the accused; The accused has in any manner misused the concession of bail by indulging in another criminal act prejudicial to the interests of the complainant;
4. He has in any manner interfered with or attempted to tamper with the investigation and the prosecution evidence;
5. He has hurled threats to the complainant or for that matter his witnesses;
6. He has abstained from joining the investigation or there is apprehension of his abscondence from the scene; and
7. When the accused is a previous convict.
The above factors and elements are so far lacking in the instant case which would have warranted the cancellation of the concession of bail extended to accused/respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.Khan.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no substance in the instant bail cancellation application which is hereby dismissed.
11. Any observations recorded in this order being tentative in nature should in no way prejudice the proceedings during the trial of the case.