MOIZ ALY MANJI vs The STATE and others
This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of dishonoured cheques and the nature of the offence. The Court observed that the cheques in question did not explicitly name the complainant, and the determination of whether they were issued with dishonest intention remained a matter for the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it carries a maximum punishment of three years. Emphasizing that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and noting the absence of any prior criminal record, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner had established a case for the concession of bail.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Through this petition filed under section 498, Cr.P.C, the petitioner Moiz Aly Manji seeks pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.383 of 2012, dated 1-8-2012, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shadman, District Lahore.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case; the instant F.I.R. Has been lodged with a delay; the cheques as referred to in the F.I.R. Were never issued by the petitioner; the petitioner has been charged with an offence which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; the petitioner is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case.
3. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the instant petition by submitting that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And a specific role has been attributed to him; the matter is still being investigated by the police authorities; the cheques as referred to in the F.I.R. Were in fact issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant which were dishonoured when presented for encashment; there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to have lodged a false and frivolous criminal case against the petitioner; hence the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
4: After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is straightway noticed the cheques as referred to in the F.I.R. Have' not been issued in favour of the complainant as the name of the complainant does not figure anywhere. Whether or not the cheques as referred to in the F.I.R. Were issued by the petitioner with dishonest intention in order to discharge an existing financial obligation would be determined by the trial Court during trial. The petitioner has been charged with an offence which carries a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence, in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years imprisonment grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. It has strongly been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a previous convicted offender.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 12-10-2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousands only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.