NASEER AHMAD vs The STATE and others
The petitioner, Naseer Ahmad, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging the issuance of a dishonored cheque for the sum of Rs. 8,00,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the contention that the cheque was issued as a guarantee rather than for consideration, notwithstanding allegations of his involvement in other similar cases. The Lahore High Court held that the question of whether the cheque was issued dishonestly required the recording of evidence, that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that grant of bail in such matters is the general rule while refusal is an exception. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule, leaving refusal as an exception, particularly when foundational elements like dishonest intent require trial evidence.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the question of whether a cheque was issued dishonestly under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the recording of evidence at trial?
- Is the grant of bail considered the general rule and refusal an exception in cases involving offences outside the prohibitory clause?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Naseer Ahmad, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in criminal case F.I.R. No,371 of 2012, dated 1-7-2012 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station City District Khanewal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that in order to return the loan, the petitioner executed a cheque for the sum of Rs,8,00,000. When presented to the drawee, it was dishonored.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque in question was not issued for the consideration but only as a guarantee for some transaction; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The grant of bail is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Prosecutor-General. It is contended that the criminal cases F.I.Rs, No,417 of 2009 for an amount of Rs,7,00,000, 50/2009 for an amount of Rs, 90,00,000/ and 357/2010 for an amount of Rs,5,00,000 have also been registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Khanewal and that he is a habitual offender.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Prosecutor-General and also gone through the record. Cheque in question was issued dishonestly is a fact which may only be determined after recording of evidence. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases, grant B of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. In the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 167