ASLAM PERVAIZ vs STATE and another
The petitioner, Aslam Pervaiz, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonour of a cheque issued for the purchase of land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the transaction and his previous criminal record. The Lahore High Court held that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the petitioner was a non-convict, the sale deed did not establish the transfer of land to the petitioner as alleged, and the case called for further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be refused merely on the ground of pending cases if the accused is otherwise entitled to bail on merits, and that offences outside the prohibitory clause where further inquiry is warranted generally favour the grant of bail.
- Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground of other pending cases if they are otherwise entitled to bail on merits?
- Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls outside the prohibitory clause and requires further inquiry?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Aslam Pervaiz seeks his post arrest bail in a case registered against vide F.I.R No, 565, dated 27.04.2013, under Section 489-F, PPC, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that for purchasing the land he issued a cheque of Rs,442,000/- which on presentation was dishonoured.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a contractual obligation and so far the land has not been transferred in favour of the petitioner. He further contended that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and in many cases registered against the petitioner he had been acquitted and is only behind the bars in the present case.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned D.P.G opposed the petition and contended that there are almost 25 other cases of similar nature against the petitioner which shows him to be a desperate and hardened criminal. They further contended that two agreements were prepared and it was agreed that the land would be transferred in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any person appointed by him. They contended that the sale-deed had been executed in the name of Qamar on the asking of the petitioner and thus the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As far as previous cases are concerned, merely the bail cannot be refused on this ground if otherwise the petitioner is entitled for his bail on merits. The petitioner is previously non convict. So far the land has not been transferred in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the land has been transferred in the name of Qamar on the asking of the petitioner. Copy of the sale deed has also been produced by the learned counsel for the complainant. This sale deed clearly shows that it was only Qamar who was the vendee and no where the name of the petitioner has been mentioned nor the police has ever recorded the statement of said Qamar that the land has been transferred in his name on the asking of the petitioner. The petitioner has been sent to judicial lock up on 14.06.2013 and is no more required for the investigation purpose. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and even otherwise the case of the petitioner definitely requires further inquiry. Accordingly this petition is allowed and Aslam Pervaiz, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the alike amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.