HUMAYUN FAISAL TEHSEEN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail in anticipation of arrest regarding an FIR alleging the issuance of a dishonored bank cheque for a financial obligation amounting to Rs. 3,000,000. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the status of the investigation. The Court observed that the entire evidence required by the prosecution, including the dishonored cheque and bank slips, was already in the possession of the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, the offence was punishable by a maximum imprisonment of three years. Holding that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the petitioner to custody only for him to subsequently seek post-arrest bail, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The principle established is that where incriminating documentary evidence is already secured by the prosecution, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed to avoid unnecessary incarceration.
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the prosecution has already secured all necessary documentary evidence?
- Does the fact that an offence carries a maximum sentence of three years justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail when evidence is already in police possession?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks admission to bail in anticipation to his arrest in case F.I.R No, 318 dated 01.07.2014 under Section 489-F, PPC registered with Police Station City Mian Channu District Khanewal at the instance of one Muhammad Rashid Manzoor, wherein it is alleged that in fulfillment of a financial obligation petitioner gave bank cheque in the sum of Rs, 30,00,000/- which on presentation was bounced. After registration of the case the Investigating Officer has collected the dishonored bank cheque along with the bank slips.
2. Heard.
3. Be that as it may, entire evidence required by the prosecution is already in possession of the Investigating officer. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with imprisonment for three years, or fine or with both, I see no useful purpose to be served by remitting the petitioner into custody so as to be released on post arrest bail after expiry of some period.
Consequently, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.