MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD vs STATE, etc
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence available. The Court held that the prosecution's case rested on documentary evidence already in its possession, eliminating the risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It further held that the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases or the magnitude of the financial amount involved does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
- Is the grant of bail the rule in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the large financial amount involved in a case of a dishonoured cheque?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner , namely , Muhammad Bashir Ahmad seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.95 dated 23.2.2019, of fence under Section 489-F , PPC, registered at Police Station Mustafa Abad, Kasur .
2. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner purchased steel sheets for the value of Rs. 10,68,324/- from the complainant and in lieu of the payment of said material, he issued a cheque of the abovementioned amount in the name of the complainant which was presented for encashment but the same was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' , hence, the abovementioned FIR.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence (dishonoured cheque and slip), which is already in possession of the prosecution and as such there is no chance of tampering with the same, therefore, in such circumstances no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of "Saeed Ahmad V. The State " (1996 SCMR 1132). Furthermore, the punishment provided for the offence under Section 489-F , PPC is imprisonment, which may extend to three years.
The offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.0 and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule while refusal is an exception. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has not pointed out any exceptional ground to refuse bail to the petitioner . Mere involvement of huge amount is no ground to refuse bail to the petitioner . Reference in this context 'may be made to the case of "Riaz Jafar Natiq v.
Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others " (2011 SCMR 1708 ). Although learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner is involved in some other criminal cases of similar nature but it is by now well settled that mere involvement of an accused in some other cases is by itself no ground to, refuse bail to him, if otherwise , he is entitled to the said relief, on merits. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of "Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan Vs. The State " (2012 SCMR 573) & "Muhammad Rafique Versus The State " (1997 SCMR 412). Thus, Keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of "Zafar Iqbal v.
Muhammad Anwar and others " (2009 SCMR 1488 ) & "Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another " (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), ordaining that where, a case falls within non-prohibitory clause, the concession of granting bail must favorably be considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court .