MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. The petitioner contended innocence, alleging false implication and mala fide intent, and argued that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated since his arrest, that the investigation was complete with the challan submitted, and that no progress had been made in the trial. The Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- 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 a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the investigation is complete?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J .---The petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail, in a case F.I.R., No. 427 of 2007, dated 25-11-2007, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghakhar Mandi, District Gujranwala, for the allegation that the petitioner issued one cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured, when the same was presented for encashment, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel, that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; and that the offence does not fall within the prohibition as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for an indefinite period. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made. The offence with which the petitioner is charged entails punishment for three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail 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 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-127/L Bail granted.