Abdul Ghafoor Gondal vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving an alleged offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 436/19. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, arguing that the complainant's bank witness confirmed the signature on the cheque did not match the petitioner's bank records, and highlighting an inordinate five-year delay in lodging the FIR without explanation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the potential for mala fide intent and the evidentiary discrepancies. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant failed to controvert the petitioner's arguments regarding the signature mismatch and the unexplained delay. Holding that the case warranted further inquiry and acknowledging the risk of undue harassment and humiliation, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an FIR is lodged with significant, unexplained delay and prima facie evidence suggests malicious intent or evidentiary weakness, the accused is entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
- Does a discrepancy in the signature on a cheque, as noted by a bank witness, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant fails to controvert the petitioner's claims regarding mala fide intent?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, J. On 27th January 2020 notice was issued in respect of pre-arrest bail sought in respect of an offence under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code ("P.P.C.") which was registered through FIR No.436/19 at Police Station City Kamonki, District Gujranwala on 28th August 2019.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Bank's witness in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code ") has stated that the signature on the said cheque does not match with the petitioner's signature in Bank's record. He further states that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of five years and no plausible explanation for the said delay has been given in the FIR. He states that under the circumstances it is a clear case of malicious and mala fide FIR and the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail to protect him from undue harassment and humiliation.
The learned counsel for the complainan t has not been able to satisfactorily controvert the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner . The case is one of further enquiry and the probability of humiliating the petitioner and by belatedly lodging of FIR cannot be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, under the circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted by this Court vide order dated 27th January 2020 is hereby confirmed.
Consequently , this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mateen Versus State 2026 YLR 201
- MOHSIN AYUB Versus State 2022 YLRN 85
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State 2022 MLD 1065
- Haseeb Hashmi vs State etc PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1029
- Haseeb Hashmi vs The State, etc 2021 IHC 188
- HADAYATULLAH Versus State 2023 PCrLJN 53