Gul Muhammad & another vs The State
This criminal matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of dishonestly issuing a cheque that subsequently bounced, leading to the registration of a criminal case. The applicants, having been denied pre-arrest bail by the trial court, approached the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over two months and that the underlying dispute appeared to be civil in nature, concerning the sale and purchase of land. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide, confirming the interim bail previously granted.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide in a case involving a dishonoured cheque?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicants dishone stly issued a cheque in favour of comp lainant Mst.
Shabana, it was bounced when was presented before the concerned Bank for encashment, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre arrest bail by the learned 3rd Addit ional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under Section 498 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy her dispute with them over settlement of account towards sale/purchase of the land; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than two months and offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further enquiry and malafide . In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State (PLD 1995 SCMR 34 ).
4. Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that the applicants had deprived the complainant of huge money .
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about more than two months, such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be lost sight of. Apparently the parties are disputed over sale/purchase of the land.
The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The investigation of the case is over. In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to grant of pre-arrest of bail on point of further enquiry and malafide.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.