Muhammad Nadeem vs State etc
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner, Muhammad Nadeem, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 dated 11.09.2018 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Farooqabad District Sheikhupura, concerning the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a business dispute involving an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that since the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the case involves further inquiry based on documentary evidence already seized by the police, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, and where the matter emanates from a business dispute with conflicting stances, bail should be granted liberally.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a dispute arising from business relations and issuance of a cheque as a guarantee warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail to be refused when the entire case is based on documentary evidence already in possession of the police and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Nadeem, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 dated 11.09.2018 register ed under Section 489-F PPC, at Police Station City Farooqabad District Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by Waheed Ahmad complainant is that he had business relations with the petitioner and during said relation the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs.
40,00,000/- and in order to return said amount he issued cheque for the said amount in favour of the complainant, which W as dis-honoured on presentation to the concerned bank.
3. Heard Record perused.
4. This is petition for post-arrest bail and only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible. It divulges from record, the version in the crime report taken by Waheed Ahmad, complainant, was that present petitioner Muhammad Nadeem purchased motorcycles from his company and in order to clear his liability the petitioner has issued cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- which on presentation before Muslim Com mercial Bank, was dis-honoured. In this way business relations with the petitioner was admitted by the complaina nt himself. On the other hand the version of the petitioner is that having business relations the cheque in question was issued as guarantee and the same was never meant for encashment but the complainant with mala fide intention and after receiving the entire amount has presented the cheque before the bank and got the same dis-honoured. From the aforementioned stances taken by both the sides it reveals that it was a business dispute between the parties and said controversy would certainly be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. It is further noted that no date and time has been mentioned by the complainant as to when the motorcycles were supplied to the petitioner . The entire case against the petitioner is based on documentary evidence which has already been taken into possession by the police. Even otherwise the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with three years R.I. or with fine and it does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Riaz Jafar Natiq vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708 ) and Zafar Iqbal vs Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488 ), ordaining that where a case, falls within the ambit of non-prohibitory clause the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases. In view of above, the case of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his person is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
5. Consequently , this petition is allowed and the petitioner Muhammad Nadeem, is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.