Syed Muhammad Moabbar vs State etc
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused of issuing a bogus cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the incident was reported with an unexplained delay of over three months and that no recovery was effected from the petitioner during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. As the petitioner is a first-time offender and the trial has not progressed significantly, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that continuous detention would not serve the interests of the prosecution.
- Does the offence of issuing a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an unexplained delay of over three months in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Should bail be granted to a first-time offender when the trial has not witnessed material progress?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Syed Muhammad Moabbar , petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 278/2020 dated 27.03.2020, under Section 489-F , P.P.C., at Police Station Bahau Din Zakriya, Multan.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that of executing a bogus cheque in favour of the complainant, dishonoured after presentation.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that the occurrence took place on 02.12.2019 but the incident was reported on 27.03.2020 with unexplained delay of more than three months. No plausible explanation is forthcoming on record for such delay . Durin g the investigation, no recovery was effected from the petitioner as the original cheque coupled with cheque return memo were lying with the complainant. The offence under Section 489-F , P.P.C. does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and grant of bail in such like cases is rule and refusal thereto is an exception. No exceptional circumstance was pointed out either by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General or by the learned counsel for the complainant.
The petitioner has got no previous record, thus, would be believed as first offende r. He is in jail since arrest and his continuous detention for indefinite period would not advance the case of the prospection, in particular , when the trial has not witnessed any material progress till date. In the circumstances, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner .
4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty Judge.