MANZOOR AHMAD vs STATE and another
The petitioner filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 128/2013 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued to the complainant. The petitioner contended that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for business transactions rather than a loan, and argued that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the bail, citing the significant amount involved and the prima facie proof of the dishonoured cheque. The Court held that while the amount involved was substantial, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as the petitioner had been incarcerated since February 2013 and was no longer required for investigation, continued detention was deemed unnecessary. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period would not serve the prosecution's interests.
- Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the volume of the amount involved in a cheque dishonour case a sufficient ground to deny bail when the offence is outside the prohibitory clause?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Manzoor Ahmad seeks post, arrest bail in case FIR No, 128 dated 07.02.2013 u/S. 489-F, PPC registered at P.S South Cantt, Lahore, on the complaint of Muhammad Hamid Ghauri on the allegation that the petitioner borrowed Rs,34,56,000/- from the complainant and for its payment, he issued a cheque, when it was presented for its drawing, the same was dishonoured; hence the case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact between the parties, there are business transactions and the petitioner never obtained any amount as loan from the complainant; the Cheque was issued for a guarantee and the same has been misused; the petitioner is behind the bars since 21.2.2013, no more required for further investigation and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned D.P.G by opposing the submissions contended that issuance of cheque has not been denied and its dishonouring has also been prima facie proved on the record, therefore, the offence has been completed and the amount is some what huge, therefore, at this early stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. No doubt the volume of amount is some what excessive but fact remains that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since A 21.2.2013 and no more required for further investigation, therefore, by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period, the prosecution will not get any benefit. Having sought guidance from the case of Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar etc reported in 2011 SCM R 1708 and PLJ 2012 Crl. Cases, Lahore 894, the instant application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.