MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State Shahid Muzaffar Khan
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in relation to F.I.R. No. 84 of 2007, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was entitled to bail given his history of multiple similar criminal cases. The Court held that while bail is generally granted for offences under Section 489-F, the petitioner's status as a habitual offender, evidenced by eight other registered F.I.Rs. of a similar nature, disentitled him to the concession of bail. The Court noted that in a previous bail order granted to the petitioner, this critical information regarding his criminal history had not been brought to the Court's attention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, establishing the principle that the habitual nature of an accused's criminal conduct can serve as a valid ground to deny bail, even for offences otherwise outside the prohibitory clause.
- Can the habitual nature of an accused's criminal conduct justify the refusal of bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the registration of multiple F.I.Rs. for similar offences constitute a valid ground for denying post-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J .---The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R. No.84 -of 2007, dated 29-10-2007 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the petitioner issued a Cheque No.168727, dated 4-5-2006 of Rs.2,50,000 same was dishonoured by the bank.
3. The learned counsel submits that the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and petitioner is behind the bars since 17-3-2007. The learned counsel also submits that there is no legal transaction mentioned between the parties in the F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that already this Court granted bail to the petitioner on 21-9-2007 in F.I.R. No. 45 of 2007. They further contend that the petitioner is a habitual offender and as many as in total 8 F.I.Rs. stands registered against the petitioner in the similar nature of offence. The said F.I.Rs. are registered at Police Stations Model Town and Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala.
5. It is correct that this Court already granted bail in one case to the petitioner as noted above. I have perused the said order while considering bail application of the petitioner in the above mentioned case, the point of registration of several other F.I.Rs. was not raised therein. Therefore, in view of this fact brought into the notice of the Court that so many F.I.Rs. stand registered against the petitioner, though normally bail is granted in offence like 489-F, P.P.C. but in view of the fact mentioned above, i.e. registration of 8 F.I.Rs., I do not find it proper to extend concession of bail to the petitioner.
6. For the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-592/L Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE and others 2011 MLD 299