MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Versus State
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Akhtar, seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 162 of 2006 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala, relating to the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque for the repayment of a loan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, the petitioner was no longer required for investigative purposes, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail ought to be granted. The court laid down the principle that bail is normally granted in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, once the accused has spent a significant period in custody and the investigation is finalized.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offence carries a punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the completion of investigation and submission of the challan provide sufficient ground for the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences?
- Can bail be granted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the petitioner has spent more than two months in jail and is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner filed this bail application in F.I.R. No.162 of 2006 dated 4-4-2006 under section 489-F, P.P.C. The said F.I.R. was registered at Police station, Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000 from the complainant which he did not return. To return the said loan or liability, the petitioner issued dishonestly a cheque which was dishonoured. The complainant again contacted the petitioner and requested him for payment of the loan which he refused. Accordingly the above F.I.R. was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no loan was obtained by the petitioner. The complainant who is a peon in the bank, manoeuvred a false cheque in the name of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been found guilty during the course of investigation and he has been accordingly challaned.
5. Investigation in the case is complete and challan has already been submitted, therefore, petitioner is no more required for the above purpose. The offence provides three years punishment. The petitioner has already spent more than two months in jail. Normally, in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., bail is granted. Therefore, in view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
6. S.A.K./M-522/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1004