Dr. MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs The STATE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the grant of post-arrest bail to respondent No. 2 by the High Court in a case involving an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions relate to whether unexplained delay in lodging a criminal complaint and the non-attraction of the prohibitory clause warrant the cancellation of post-arrest bail already granted by a competent court. The Supreme Court held that where the criminal complaint was instituted after an unexplained delay of over three years, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the investigation is complete, a civil recovery suit is pending, and there is no allegation of misuse of bail, interference with the High Court's discretion to grant bail is unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The key principles laid down include that considerations for grant of bail differ from those for its cancellation, and the court is generally slow to cancel bail after the submission of a challan when no abuse of concession is shown.
- Whether unexplained delay in instituting a criminal complaint for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a relevant consideration in bail matters?
- Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail when the investigation is finalized and no misuse of bail is alleged?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---An application had been received by the office of this Court yesterday from the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking an adjournment as the learned counsel for the petitioner had "gone to attend marriages of his nephew and niece at District Muzaffargarh". The office of this Court had informed the learned Advocate-on- Record for the petitioner yesterday that the hearing of this petition shall not be adjourned on the above mentioned ground and that the learned Advocate-on-Record ought to appear before this Court today so as to address arguments on behalf of the petitioner in the absence of his learned counsel. The petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner have failed to appear before this Court today despite the above mentioned information supplied by the office of this Court to the learned Advocate-Record. In these circumstances we have not felt persuaded to adjourn the hearing of this matter.
2. After going through the memorandum of this petition and the documents appended therewith and after hearing the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 we have noticed that the criminal cast in hand had been instituted by the complainant after about three years, two months and fourteen days of the alleged transaction between the parties leading to dishonoring of the relevant cheque and such delay had never been properly explained by the complainant.
The alleged offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 2 had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the High Court after he had already spent about three months in jail and his continued custody in jail was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at that stage. A suit for recovery of the relevant amount filed by the present petitioner/complainant against respondent No. 2 is already pending before a civil court. The investigation of the present criminal case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and this Court is generally slow in canceling an accused person's bail at such a stage of a criminal case.
The reasons recorded by the High Court for admitting respondent No. 2 to post-arrest bail have not been found by us to be averse to the settled principles governing the law of bail. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely different. No allegation has been leveled before us regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by respondent No. 2. In these circumstances no occasion has been found by us for interference with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Shahban vs The State & another 2022 IHC 70
- MUHAMMAD ASIF JAVED Versus State 2020 MLD 1896
- MURSLEEN vs Syed EHSAN SHAH 2019 YLR 1330