JAFFER ALI vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Jaffer Ali seeking confirmation of his interim bail in case FIR No. 46 dated 08.02.2016 under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, regarding the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque for Rs. 18,50,000/-. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for the confirmation of his pre-arrest bail, considering the delayed reporting and the surrounding family disputes. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be accepted, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an FIR is lodged with an inordinate delay without explanation, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the facts disclose a need for further inquiry into the bona fides of the charge—especially amidst civil litigation between father and son—bail should be granted in accordance with the principle that the rule is bail and not jail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is an unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR?
- Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the underlying transaction and bona fides of the criminal charge require further inquiry due to an existing civil dispute between the parties?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Jaffer Ali, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 46 dated 08.02.2016, registered under Section 489-F, PPC with Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. 2.As per crime report, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has dishonestly issued a cheque for amount of Rs. 18,50,000/-in favour of the complainant which was dishonored on its presentation by the concerned bank.
3. 3.Parties heard. Record perused.
4. 4.The perusal of the record shows that there is six months inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no explanation has been provided by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case disclosed that complainant, who is real son of the petitioner while playing fraud got mutated the land of the petitioner in his favour and in this regard petitioner filed a civil suit against the complainant and due to this grudge complainant has stolen the cheque of the petitioner and filed this false case. Prime facie the story of the petitioner and that of the FIR regarding borrowing of Rs. 18,50,000/-by the petitioner from the complainant needs to be looked into. Moreover, the sentence involved for the offence charged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and the basic - is bail and not the jail as enunciated in the cas of "Tariq Basrulehir and 5 others vs. The State" (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), so I find the petitioner entitled for the confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail.
5. 5.In view of the above facts and circumstance the petition in hand is accepted and anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 6.10.2016 is confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the