Muhammad Saleem vs State etc
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Muhammad Saleem, in relation to an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the delayed presentation of the cheques, and the potential for mala fides. The Court observed that there was a substantial, unexplained delay in reporting the offence and presenting the cheques for encashment. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a recovery suit and the lack of documentation regarding the underlying transaction, suggesting that criminal proceedings may have been initiated as an arm-twisting tactic. Holding that the offence fell within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that mala fides could not be ruled out, the Court granted pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where criminal law is potentially misused for civil disputes, bail should be granted if the offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause.
- Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is a substantial, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and presenting cheques?
- Is the potential misuse of criminal law as an arm-twisting tactic a valid ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem has sought pre-arrest bail in crime number 798 of 2020 registered under Section. 489-F , P.P.C. at the Kharadar police station in Karachi. Earlier , his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South.
2. Background to the case is that Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi lodged the aforementioned FIR on 30-9-2020 reporting an offence that had occurred on 15.11.2018. Qureshi recorded that he drove a taxi and that 6 years ago he had entered into a transaction with the applicant's brother Nasir . The transaction did not go through so Qureshi demanded his money back. The applicant, allegedly on behalf of Nasir , issued 3 cheques, which cheques bounced upon presentation.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the applicant as well as the complainan t and the learned Addl.P .G. My observations are as follows.
4. There is a substantial delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. which at the moment remains unexplained. Further , the cheques allegedly issued are dated in the years 2018 and 2019, which too were presented at the bank counters for encashment after a substantially long time. Once again, no cogent explanation has been provided. The nexus of the applicant with the transaction is yet to be proved. The learned counsel for the complainant has been unable to produce the agreement that the parties entered into for the purchase of the property . It appears that a settlement agreement may have been entered into between the parties however the circumstances in which the same was entered into and how that process unfolded still requires to be proved. No suit for recovery of money has been filed by the complainant and upon a tentative assessment it appears that criminal law may have been put into motion as an arm twisting tactic, Keeping the prima facie animosity between the parties in mind, malafide cannot be conclusively ruled out at this preliminary stage. An offence under Section 489-F , P.P.C. though not bailable carries a potential sentence of 3 years and hence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. There are no exceptional or extraordinary grounds to decline bail on this account.
5.Above are the reasons for the short order dated 22-2-2021.