ZAHID RASHEED vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahid Rasheed, in relation to FIR No. 296/16 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in light of partial payments made and an undertaking to settle the remaining outstanding liability. During the proceedings, it was established that the petitioner had already paid a portion of the amount, and both parties reached a consensus regarding the payment of the remaining balance within a specified timeframe. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and confirmed the interim bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The Court further held that the confirmation of bail was conditional upon the petitioner's compliance with the payment schedule, explicitly noting that failure to adhere to this undertaking would entitle the complainant to seek the cancellation of the bail granted.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed based on a compromise or settlement regarding the outstanding cheque amount?
- Does a failure to fulfill a payment undertaking given to the court during bail proceedings provide grounds for the complainant to seek bail cancellation?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Zahid Rasheed in case FIR No, 296/16 dated 14.04.2017, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, District Multan.
2. Precisely stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded from the FIR is that the petitioner issued a cheque of an amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- towards fulfillment of an obligation, which on presentation before the bank was dishonoured.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It evinces from the record that the petitioner stands implicated in the instant case for issuance of cheque for an amount of Rs, 2,00,000/-, which on presentation before the concerned bank was dishonoured.
5. At the very outset, it is candidly conceded by Muhammad Sarfraz Khan (complainant) that out of the above mentioned amount, he has already received an amount of Rs, 87,000/- from the petitioner. Conversely, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though he has already paid an amount of Rs, 1,27,000/- but is ready to. pay further an amount of Rs, 93,000/- to the complainant, within one month positively.
6. In view of above proposal, the complainant has shown grace by raising no objection for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.
7. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed and the interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of fresh bail bond for an amount of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount to the complainant, he (complainant) will be well within his right to move an application for the cancellation of bail.