MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Riaz in case F.I.R. No. 146/12 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and lacks immediate documentary evidence regarding the underlying transaction. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause, and the case warrants further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail should generally be granted where an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and the matter requires further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail as a rule when the alleged offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the F.I.R. lacks details and documentary evidence regarding the monetary transaction?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the accused allegedly deprived the complainant of a huge financial amount when the maximum punishment for the offence is three years imprisonment?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Riaz petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 146/12, dated 22.03.2012, for an offence under Section 489-F, PPC registered at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case against the petitioner is totally fabricated and is an, outcome of an application moved by the brother of the petitioner against the complainant containing serious allegation of corruption against him; that no date and time of occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R; that there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P. Code; that in the circumstances case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Further contends that petitioner has no previous criminal record and is behind the bars since 07.04.2012 without any progress in his trial.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing bail application contends that the petitioner has deprived the innocent complainant from a huge amount of 50,00,000/-; that the petitioner issued the disputed cheque to the complainant knowing the fact that he has insufficient fonds in his account, which cheque has been dishonored and that is sufficient to prove his dishonest intention to constitute an offence under Section 489- F, PPC; that contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need deeper appreciation of the evidence of the case and that is not permissible at bail stage mere non-falling of an offence within prohibitory clause does not entitle any accused to be released on bail as 'a matter of right.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Mumtaz Ahmad A.S.I./Investigating Officer after consulting the record confirms that petitioner has no previous criminal record.
Be that as it may, F.I.R. does not speak about the details of the transaction between the parties, even there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R. The alleged dishonest intention of the petitioner can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence and case against the petitioner, prima facie, falls within sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Petitioner is behind the bars since 07.04.2012 whereas the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is imprisonment for three years and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr. P.C, grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.
6. In view of all above, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate.
7. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.