Muhammad Nawaz vs The State, etc
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nawaz, in connection with an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the nature of the offence and the duration of the petitioner's incarceration. The Court observed that there was an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the F.I.R. and noted that the offence under Section 489-F did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation purposes. Consequently, the Court held that in cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The petition was accepted, and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is the offence of issuing a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Should bail be granted as a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. --- Through this Crl. Misc., petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, 392/2014, dated 04.10.2014 registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Brief facts of the cases, as per contents of the F.I.R., are that petitioner dishonestly issued a cheque bearing No, 66790565, dated 28.01.2014 amounting to Rs, 700,000/- in favour of complainant which was dishonoured on its presentation to the concerned bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant case; that petitioner issued the disputed cheque to the complainant as a guarantee in business transaction; that F.I.R. Lodged after unexplained delay of 9 months; that offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause; that petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest; that petitioner is no more required to the Police for further investigation; that prosecution has badly failed to prove its case and also did not bring on record any material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and bail in such like cases is rule and refusal is an exception, as such, bail may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No, 2 submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that cheque in question was also issued by the petitioner, as such, petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is behind the bar since 10.10.2014. There is unexplained delay of 9 months in lodging the F.I.R. The maximum sentence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years. Petitioner is no more required to the Police for the purpose of investigation. The case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., in such-like cases concession of granting bail must be favourably considered. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCM R 1708) and Abdul Sattar v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 173).
7. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Bail after arrest granted.