MUHAMMAD SHABBIR Versus State

ORDER

SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.--- Muhammad Shabbir, petitioner seeks his release on bail after his arrest in case FIR No.76 of 2019 dated 06.03.2019 registered at Police Station Gele-Wal, District Lodhran in respect of an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. Precisely stated the case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the FIR, is that the petitioner had drawn a cheque of Rs.52,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation before the concerned bank authorities was dishonoured.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. That the alleged date of occurrence as mentioned in FIR is 15.09.2018 and the cheque was dishonoured on 06.12.2018, whereas the case was registered on 06.03.2019. The instant FIR was registered after a delay. No explanation has been mentioned in the FIR for this deferral of getting the FIR registered. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General and counsel for the complainant stated that the petitioner caused the financial ruin of respondent No.2, complainant of the FIR. I have given profound consideration to the fact that the petitioner is saddled with the responsibility of depriving the complainant from a huge amount of Rs.52,00,000/-. This is a settled principle that the concession of bail is a procedural relief having nothing to do with the final decision of the trial. If a person, otherwise is found entitled to the concession of bail, his liberty cannot be curtailed on the ground of the charge being of heavy amount. Even otherwise the offence punishable under section 489-F, P.P.C. carries the maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years. There is no distinction regarding the sentence which can be passed, depending upon the value of the cheque. Since the above provision of law does not carry any such distinction, the maximum sentence which can be executed upon the petitioner remains to be three years if the case is proved. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has settled the law that in such like cases the grant of bail is rule and its refusal is an exception.

5. It may further be noted that the case against the present petitioner is almost entirely reliant on documentary evidence which, admittedly, is in the possession of the prosecution and clearly there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the same. The cheque in question is already in the custody of the court which is dealing with the suit filed by the respondent No.2 under Order XXXVII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated would tantamount to punishing him despite the fact that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The Courts have invariably learned favourably in the granting of bail when the case is dependent upon documentary evidence and the same is in possession of the prosecuting agency. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Saeed Ahmed v. The State" (1996 SCMR 1132) and "Muhammad Nawaz v. The State through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad and another" (PLD 2008 SC 438). It has been observed by the auaust Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Manzoor and 4 others v. The State" (PLD 1972 SC 81) as infra;

"The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run."

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the refusal of bail will tantamount to punishing the petitioner.

6. For the foregoing reasons the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

7. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial court.

SA/M-176/L Bail granted.