ABDUL HAMEED vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and grant of bail, considering the prior civil litigation and the disputed nature of the cheque. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail as the business transaction was admitted, a civil suit for cancellation of the cheque and rendition of accounts was pending prior to the FIR, and the cheque appeared to be open without a date and amount. The court established the principle that where a genuine civil dispute regarding accounts and the execution of a cheque exists prior to criminal proceedings, and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case warrants further inquiry, making the accused a fit case for the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a civil suit regarding the rendition of accounts and cancellation of the cheque is already pending?
- Does an offence under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in circumstances involving disputed business transactions?
- What is the effect on a criminal case of issuing an open cheque without a date and amount during a business transaction?
- Section 489F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner, namely, Abdul Hameed, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 449, dated 05.12.2014, registered under Section 489F, PPC, at Police Station. Jahaian, District Khanewal.
2. The precise allegations against the petitioner, as per FIR, are that in connection with business transaction between the petitioner and the complainant, a sum of Rs. 34,94,000/- was outstanding against the petitioner, towards payment of which, he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, but dishonoured.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Business between the parties is admitted in the FIR. A suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the cheque in question and rendition of account much before registration of the FIR is still pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction. As per the document dated 15.3.2014 annexed With the petition at Page No. 25, the cheque in question was open, i.e. Without date and amount.
5. All the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, to my mind, have made the case against the petitioner as of further inquiry. The offence charged against him does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. He is behind the bars and as such no more required for any further investigation in this case.
6. Resultantly, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.