MAZHAR IQBAL vs STATE and another
This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of over three months in the registration of the FIR, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was a previous non-convict and the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a penal provision and not a mechanism for debt recovery, for which civil remedies under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exist. Emphasizing that further incarceration served no purpose as investigation was complete, the Court granted bail, establishing that mere registration of other cases without conviction is insufficient to deny bail.
- Does the registration of other criminal cases without conviction constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
- Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to function as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR impact the entitlement to bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No, 70/2008 dated 14.02.2008 under Section 489-F, PPC, Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad.
2. 2.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of three months and nine days in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie reflects that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars since 07.04.2015, investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction or abscission of the accused are no grounds to refuse bail to him, if otherwise he has become entitled for the concession of bail on the merits of the case.
3. It may be observed here that Section 489-F, PPC is not a mechanism for the recovery of amount.
3. It is just a penal provision which carries punishment of three years only. Ultimately the complainant has to file suit under Order XXXVII, CPC for the recovery of his amount.
4. 4.For what has been discussed above, taking guidance from 2011 SCM R 1708, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
5. 5.The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the