MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus State
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner sought bail, contending that the cheque was issued as part of a legitimate business transaction and that the entire amount had subsequently been repaid to the complainant. The petitioner alleged that the complainant, despite receiving payment, failed to return the cheque and initiated the criminal proceedings out of mala fide intent to exert pressure. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in the FIR. Upon review, the Court noted that investigation findings supported the petitioner's claim of payment and observed that the complainant had refused to substantiate the allegation through an oath on the Holy Quran during a Panchayat. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that the possibility of false implication due to business rivalry could not be excluded. The Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that where investigation suggests payment has been made, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry.
- Does the alleged repayment of a dishonoured cheque amount to a case of further inquiry for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court grant pre-arrest bail where the investigation suggests that the underlying financial obligation has been satisfied?
- Is the refusal of a complainant to take an oath on the Holy Quran a relevant factor in determining the possibility of false implication in a criminal case?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.-- Through this petition under sections 498/ 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Rafique petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.583 dated 4-8-2008, registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Raiwind Saddar District Kasur.
2. Brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. is that he had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.4,50,000 dated 6-2-2007, to the complainant which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely on account of mala fide of the complainant; that in fact there was a business transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and the cheque was issued to they complainant as a result thereof but subsequently the entire amount was paid by the petitioner to the complainant; that during the investigation it has been proved through evidence that the entire amount was paid to the complainant, who did not return the cheque and only to pressurize the petitioner has falsely involved him in this case, and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail before arrest.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the alleged cheque was issued in the year, 2007 while the case was registered against the petitioner in 2008. During the investigation as pointed out by the Investigating Officer it was found that the entire payment was made by the petitioner to the complainant. It is also stated that a Punchayat was convened and on the proposal of the petitioner the complainant refused to give or take oath on Holy Quran in proof of the allegation. Keeping in view such circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry and possibility of his false implication due to business rivalry cannot be ruled out. Hence, this application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-11-2008; is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
H.B.T./M-18/L Bail granted.