Rizwan Shehzad vs The State etc.
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Rizwan Shehzad seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 566 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, District Gujranwala, relating to the issuance of dishonoured cheques for the purchase of copper wire. The core legal question is 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 the matter involves disputed accounts and business transactions. The court held that the petitioner has made out a case for bail as the offence carries a maximum sentence of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and Section 489-F should not be used as a tool for recovery of money, while further noting that the petitioner's continued detention is not warranted. The key principles laid down are that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant bail as a rule, that dishonoured cheque cases involving rendition of accounts require trial determination for dishonest intent, and that penal provisions like Section 489-F PPC cannot be used to coerce financial recovery.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted under Section 489-F PPC when a business dispute and question of rendition of accounts exist between the parties?
- Does an offence under Section 489-F PPC fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F PPC be utilized as a coercive tool for the recovery of disputed financial amounts?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition, Rizwan Shehzad the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.566 dated 02.06.2014 offence under section 489-F PPC registered with Police Station Sabzi Mandi, District Gujranwala.
2. The allegation, in brief, against the present petitioner is that he purchased copper wire items valuing Rs.1,85,00,000/ from the complainant and in lieu thereof paid Rs.5,00,000/-as cash and for remaining amount issued two cheques which were dishonoured on presentation before the concerned bank.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Though both the cheques relate to the account of present petitioner and signatures thereon are not denied by him yet business relationship between the parties is not negated as well and during investigation some dispute regarding rendition of accounts is found existing that further finds support from the affidavits sworn and tendered by the members of 'Panchayat' held between the parties. So, in the above circumstances, question of issuance of cheques in issue, with dishonest intention and to discharge the alleged liability is yet to be determined by the learned trial court.
The offence carrying maximum sentence of three years imprisonment, does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Mere involvement of huge amount does not augment the gravity of offence and registration of case for an offence under Section 489-F PPC is not to be used as a tool for the recovery of amount. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that two cases of alike nature were registered against the petitioner but admittedly compromise has been effected in both the cases. Petitioner is behind the bars since 24.11.2014 and his corpus is no more required for investigation purposes. Conclusion of the trial is not in sight and detention of petitioner for indefinite period is not justified.
5. In view of all discussed above, the instant application is allowed and Rizwan Shahzad the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.