This matter arose from a petition for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for issuing a dishonoured cheque worth Rs. 16,00,000. The High Court had declined bail to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where there are apparent overwriting issues on the cheque and a lack of preliminary evidence establishing the underlying financial obligation or loan. The Supreme Court observed that the cheque contained overwriting on the date and figures, lacked an amount written in words, was a 'self' cheque not issued directly in the complainant's name, and the complainant provided no documentary proof showing when or how business funds were paid. Furthermore, the offence under Section 489-F PPC carries a maximum punishment of three years, falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner had been incarcerated for six months. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court allowed bail, establishing that questionable cheque validity and unproven underlying financial liability entitle an accused to post-arrest bail when the offense falls outside the prohibitory clause.
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner is an accused of a criminal case registered under section, 489-F, P.P.C. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is, that he issued a cheque amounting to Rs,16,00,000 in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured by the bank when presented before it for encashment. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail, which has been declined by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 23-12-2013. '
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that there is overwriting on the alleged cheque with regard to the date as .Also the amount in the figures. Besides, it is a blank cheque, which has - not been issued in favour of the complainant, and there is no amount incorporated therein in words. He has submitted that neither a loan was given to the petitioner towards the re-payment whereof such could be issued nor the cheque has been issued in fulfilment of the petitioner's financial obligation, thus it is a case where the bail should have been allowed as the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and the complainant, present in person, who is also an Advocate. From the record of the prosecution, it transpires that the cheque on the basis of which the case has been registered seemingly has some overwriting upon the date of the cheque and the amount in figure. Moreover, the said cheque, was not issued in favour of the complainant; besides there is no amount mentioned in words. The complainant however alleges that this was a 'self cheque' and therefore, it was issued to him and accordingly the dishonouring of the cheque would attract the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C. He has also mentioned that the amount covered by the cheque was paid by the complainant to the petitioner from time to time for the purposes of the business and it is for the return of such amount.
Contrarily, on further query, there is no evidence available with the complainant as to how, when and by what process various amounts were paid to the petitioner for business purposes. To that end, these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the learned High Court while declining bail to the petitioner. We find these contours of the case to be quite conspicuous and relevant entitling the petitioner to bail when the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the maximum sentence for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years. At the same time, the petitioner is behind the bars for the, last about six months.
4. In light of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.