MUHAMMAD ATIF Versus State
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon an application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged dishonour of cheques. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail where a civil dispute regarding tenancy, adjustment of expenses, and stop-payment instructions exists between the parties. The court held that interim pre-arrest bail should be granted to the applicant subject to furnishing security, pending confirmation or otherwise, while directing the applicant to join the investigation. The key principle laid down is that where the transaction arises from a commercial or civil dispute involving accounts and prior instructions to stop payment, and mala fides in lodging the FIR are contended, interim pre-arrest bail may be granted to prevent humiliation and unwarranted arrest pending notice to the prosecution.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a criminal case arises out of a commercial or civil dispute?
- Is an accused entitled to interim pre-arrest bail pending notice to the Prosecutor General?
- Does the issuance of post-dated cheques under a tenancy agreement involving adjusted expenses warrant pre-arrest bail?
ORDER
1. TUFAIL H. EBRHAIM, J .---Granted.
2. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions.
3. Per learned counsel the alleged cheques have not been issued by the applicant/accused, but the same were issued on behalf of the Quice Food Industries Limited. Per learned counsel the said company was the tenant of father of the complainant and in terms of the tenancy agreement advance post dated cheques were issued. Per learned counsel the company had paid the outstanding K.E.S.C. bills on behalf of the landlord and also made major repairs and renovation of the demised rented premises on behalf of the landlord (father of the complainant). Per learned counsel the future monthly rent was to be adjusted towards such expenses and the cheques were to be returned. Per learned counsel the F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide and ulterior reasons as when the company requested the father of the complainant to settle the accounts and prior to which date the company had already requested its bankers to stop payment in view of the dispute between the parties. Per learned counsel the cheques were not dishonoured due to any dishonesty and it can be verified from the concerned bank that sufficient funds were available in the account of the company. Per learned counsel there is civil dispute between the parties and a case has been filed by the company against the father of the complainant for recovery of amount and damages and compensation. Per learned counsel there is apprehension and fear that the applicant/accused will be arrested by the police and he will be humiliated in the society.
4. Without going into the merits of the case interim pre-arrest bail is granted to applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Issue notice to the Prosecutor General to come up on 5-10-2010 for confirmation or otherwise. The applicant/accused is directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer.
5. H.B.T./M-2/K Bail granted.