SAJJAD AHMAD WASEEM vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 297/14 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no further recovery is required. The Court held that since the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused has joined the investigation, no recovery is pending, and the trial has already commenced, sending the petitioner to jail would serve no useful purpose. The Court laid down the key principle that Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was designed to determine guilt and award sentence rather than to be used as a coercive mechanism for the recovery of disputed amounts, for which the remedy lies under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
- Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be used as a tool for the recovery of a disputed amount?
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the accused has joined the investigation and no recovery is to be effected?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' This petition has been moved seeking, pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 297/14 dated 06.06.2014 under Section 489-F, PPC registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, is that he dishonestly issued a cheque of Rs, 10,00,000/- to the Complainant, which on presentation before the concerned bank was dishonoured.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Offence under Section 489-F, PPC does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Record did not show that petitioner/accused was: a previous convict. He has already joined investigation and 'no recovery is to be effected from him. Trial against petitioner has already been commenced and he is appearing before the trial Court. Sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution. Provision of Section 489F, PPC was not intended by legislature to be used for recovery of amount in dispute; same was designed to determine the guilt and award sentence. Remedy for recovery of amount has been provided in Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
5. In view of above, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court is confirmed, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.