Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus State
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Mian Muhammad Saeed, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a business dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque in question to an arbitrator rather than the complainant directly, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the cheque was issued to an arbitrator to resolve a business dispute, not the complainant, and had not been presented for encashment, raising significant questions requiring further probe. The Court held that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2). Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, affirming the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Does an offence 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 the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a case against an accused call for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Mian Muhammad Saeed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.156 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad on 19-3-2004 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties going and through the record it has been noticed that according to the F.I.R. itself the complainant and the petitioner were. locked in a business dispute requiring rendition of accounts. It is admitted at all hands that during the efforts made for resolution of such dispute some arbitrators had been appointed including one Haji Abdul Ghani and the cheque in issue had been executed by the petitioner in favour of the said arbitrator namely Haji Abdul Ghani. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not have any obligation towards Haji Abdul Ghani in whose favour the relevant cheque had been issued and Haji Abdul Ghani had never produced the said cheque before the concerned Bank for its encashment nor he has so far filed any suit or any criminal proceedings against the petitioner in that connection. Thus, the question as to whether the complainant of this case was entitled to get the relevant cheque encashed on his own or the question whether the petitioner was under any obligation towards Haji Abdul Ghani regarding any payment are questions which necessarily require further probe at this stage. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such cases is a rule and its refusal is merely an exception. No special circumstance has been found by me in this case to depart from the beaten track in this regard.
??????
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, B allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with on surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1079/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.