SAJJAD HAIDER vs STATE, etc
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner Sajjad Haider sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 292-12 registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Baigowala, District Sialkot, regarding the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite previous involvement in similar cases. The Lahore High Court held that since the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries an alternative sentence of fine and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The court reasoned that keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period before trial conclusion would amount to pre-trial punishment, and previous unproven criminal involvement does not disentitle him to bail. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.
- Whether 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 previous involvement in criminal cases without conviction disentitle an accused from the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Does keeping an accused behind bars for an indefinite period for an offence carrying an alternative sentence of fine amount to advance punishment?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Sajjad Haider seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 292-12 dated 15.11.2012 under section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station Baigowala District Sialkot.
2.Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR is that petitioner issued a cheque valuing Rs,3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant but the same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had some business terms with the complainant and in lieu of that he had issued the cheque as security; that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition while arguing that the petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount, hence, he is not entitle for the concession of bail. Learned DDPP after going through the record states that petitioner was earlier involved in two criminal cases under Section 489-F, PPC but concedes that he has not been convicted in those cases.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. According to the stance of the petitioner he issued the cheque as a guarantee/security, whereas, the claim of the complainant is that petitioner had issued the cheque in order to fulfill his obligation. This controversy would be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. The offence under Section 489-F, PPC is punishable with three years RI or with fine, meaning thereby that alternative sentence of fine only is also provided under the said offence and trial Court can also sentence the petitioner for fine only. In that eventuality, keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to advance punishment.
7. The offences u/S. 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S-497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as laid down in Tariq Bashir's case (PLD 1995 SC 34). The exceptions mentioned in the said judgment are not available in the present case as petitioner is previously non-convict. His involvement in two other cases of same nature without any conviction is not sufficient to disentitle him from the concession of bail. The petitioner is behind the bars but his trial has not yet been concluded. He cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period in an offence, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. It is almost settled that where the case falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., the concession of granting bail is to be favourably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases. The honourable Supreme Court has taken the similar view in cases of Riaz Jaffar Natiq Vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCM R 1708) and Zafar lqbal Vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCM R 1488).
9. Consequently, this petition is accepted and Sajjad Haider petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000/- (3-lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.