MALIK IRFAN vs STATE & another
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the dispute. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution failed to explain a delay of five months and ten days in reporting the offence. Furthermore, the Court determined that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), the Court held that in cases not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years' imprisonment, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. As the petitioner was a first-time offender and no longer required for investigation, the bail petition was accepted.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a dispute involving a dishonoured cheque considered to be of a civil nature for the purposes of bail?
- In cases not punishable with death or life imprisonment, is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 131/2013, dated 26.02.2013, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station. Factory Area District Sheikhupura.
2. Brief allegation against the petitioner, as per contents of FIR, is that he issued cheque worth Rs, 2,00,000/- to the complainant in lieu of the amount borrowed by him from the complainant, but on presentation the same could not be en-cashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives.
It is argued that there is delay of 5 months and 10. days in-lodging the FIR, which goes unexplained at the part of the prosecution It is next argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature.
It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and no more required by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that case against the petitioner is not covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition with the averments that the petitioner is named in the FIR, who has deprived the complainant from a valuable amount and as such he does not deserve any relief.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. I have also gone through the record.
6. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR, however, there is a delay of 5 months and 10 days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, bare reading of the FIR reveals that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Even otherwise maximum sentence of offence against the petitioner is not more than three years as such the same is not covered under sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and as has been held in the case of Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), in cases not punishable with death, transportation of life or 10 years' imprisonment, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. The petitioner is stated to be previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest and as such investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation.
7. In sequel to what has been discussed above, the instant petition is accepted as a consequence whereof the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.