MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs STATE & another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 305/2016 registered at Police Station City Vehari, involving an allegation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque valued at Rs. 200,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the dispute and a subsequent settlement between the parties. The petitioner contended that the cheque was issued as a blank guarantee for pesticide purchases and admitted liability for only Rs. 67,000. During the proceedings, the parties reached a settlement wherein the petitioner agreed to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 67,000, and the complainant expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail upon this payment. The Court held that, given the compoundable nature of the offence and the settlement reached between the parties, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Is an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered compoundable for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed based on a settlement reached between the parties in court?
- Does the admission of partial liability in a cheque dishonour case entitle an accused to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Through the instant petition, petitioner Muhammad Rafique son of Qadir Buksh has sought pre- arrest bail in case FIR No, 305 dated 11.08.2016, in respect of offence under Sections 489-F, PPC registered at Police Station City Vehari.
2. 2.The brief allegation against the petitioner is that he had issued a cheque valuing Rs, 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned bank on 20.06.2016. Hence, this case was registered.
3. 3.Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. 4.At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has focused his argument to the effect that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner as a guarantee, for purchasing pesticide, which was blank and was filled by the complainant himself. He concedes that the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs, 67,000/-, and he is ready to pay the said amount to the complainant for tomorrow i,e, 28.12.2016. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant, present in the Court, is ready to receive the said amount of Rs, 67,000/- reserving his right to claim the remaining amount at the time of trial. He further adds that the complainant has no objection for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in case the said amount of Rs, 67,000/- is paid as per aforementioned undertaking. In view of this development, the offence being compoundable, the petitioner is entitled to the claim of his pre-arrest bail on the basis of aforementioned settlement arrived at between the parties in the Court.
5. ' In view of above, this petition is allowed and the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial