Khawaja MATEEN YOUSAF vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of cheque dishonour and the petitioner's counter-arguments regarding the mala fide nature of the complaint and an unexplained delay in registration. The Court observed that the complainant failed to substantiate the alleged loan transaction with any documentary evidence, such as account books, and noted a significant, unexplained delay of over two years in reporting the offence. Furthermore, the Court held that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause, as the maximum sentence is three years. Finding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of mala fide intent and lack of clear business relations, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the necessity of evidence in financial disputes.
- Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate where there is an unexplained delay of over two years in the registration of an FIR for cheque dishonour?
- Can a complainant's failure to produce evidence of business relations or loan transactions justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Khawaja Mateen Yousaf, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 355/2013 dated 26.4.2013 for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the FIR is that he issued three cheques for the total sum of Rs,5,70,000/- in favour of the complainant which were dishonoured upon their presentation before the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against the petitioner is false and frivolous; that there is unexplained delay of two years and ten months in registration of the FIR.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no business relations with the complainant; that the petitioner is running his joint business with Ch. Razwan Majeed;. that the cheques in dispute were in possession of Razwan Majeed in connection with some settlement of accounts; that the petitioner never availed any loan from the complainant and as such the FIR registered against: the petitioner is mala fide and meant to blackmail and humiliate the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in case the petitioner is arrested his reputation will be ruined in the society.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that admittedly the cheque issued by the petitioner has been bounced and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. As per contents of the FIR the complainant allowed a loan of Rs,570,000/- to the petitioner but surprisingly the complainant has failed to mention when he allowed loan to the petitioner.
Investigating Officer present in Court when was asked whether the complainant has produced any evidence as to his Khata or Account Books showing that he ever allowed any loan to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is unable to reply. It is not understandable why the complainant remained silent for more than two years when the cheques were bounced in August, 2010 and November, 2010. The maximum sentence of the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is three years and as such the said offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The complainant may have some business relations with the co-partner of the petitioner, but the complainant has failed to establish any business relations with the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and ad in terim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 06.06.2013 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.