Muhammad Muneer Versus State
Order
Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan, J .--- The captioned application/ petition has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of post arrest bail in case illat No.202/25 registered at Police Station, Bagh, against the applicant on the instigation of complainant respondent No.3 in offences under Section 489-F, 420 APC on 10.07.2025 while the impugned orders of the learned Courts below dated 10.12.2025 and 13.12.2025 were sought to be annulled.
2. Precise grievance of the applicant is that the aforesaid case was registered against the applicant and he was apprehended by the police while he filed an application for grant of post arrest bail before the Judicial Magistrate, Bagh, on 08.12.2025, which was rejected vide order dated 10.12.2025 and thereafter, he filed subsequent application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bagh, for grant of post arrest bail, which was also turned down vide impugned order dated 13.12.2025, which are liable to be set-aside . It has been stated that in offence under Section 489-F APC, the bail cannot be withheld as punishment and bail is rule and refusal is an exception while dishonoured cheque itself does not establish fraudulent intention. It has been stated that the complainant is continuously not only frustrating the applicant but also harassing and torturing family of the applicant on which such atmosphere was created to which he was compelled to confess the alleged offence on the basis of which he got recorded his confessional statement during trial rather no opportunity has been provided to him for proper hearing, hence, in such like situation, the applicant was entitled to concession of bail but the learned Courts below fell in grave error while rejecting the bail applications of the applicant and proceeded with matter inconsonance with the relevant provisions of law, as such, the same are liable to set-aside, which is the subjectmatter of the instant case.
3. Heard. Record perused. During proceedings, the learned counsel for the complainant raised objection that the instant application/petition is not maintainable in the eye of law because accused-applicant has got recorded his confessional during the trial proceedings whereupon this Court vide orders dated 04.03.2026 and 05.03.2026 summoned the Challani file and the accused-applicant through Superintendent Jail Bagh. In compliance of orders of the Court, the accused-applicant was produced before the Court and has stated that he has recorded his confessional statement on the account of compulsion, influence and coercion because my mother was nominated in the impugned FIR and the complainant extended threats, harassed and forcibly compelled to record confessional statement otherwise, the complainant will get arrested his mother while the complainant party regularly visited his house and harassed his disabled brother and he was neither provided fair opportunity by the trial Court nor he was informed the legal consequences of the such statement and in this regard his statement has been recorded, which has also been made as part of file.
4. After hearing and perusing Challani file, it appears that a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted before the trial Court on 10.10.2025 and charge was framed under Section 242, Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2025 wherein he confessed the guilt. Apparently, accused-applicant was not provided an opportunity of fair trial. The Superior Courts have repeatedly held that a fair trial is right of accused and it is for the Court of competent jurisdiction to provide all assistance, which are essential for conduction of fair trial and initiation of proceedings without providing such opportunity is contrary to the Constitutional provisions rather it violates the right to fair trial and due process guaranteed by the Constitution, Ibid. Article 4 (1) & (2) lays down the fundamental rights that inconsistency and contravention with the rights conferred by this Article shall be void. According to Sub-Article (1) of Article 4, any law or any custom or usage having the force of law, insofar as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Article, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void while in Sub-Article (2) of the said Article, connotes that [No law shall be made] which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred and any law made in contravention of this Sub-Article shall, to the extent of such contravention, be void. Sub- Article (1) of Article 4 deals with the existing laws and has three parts, first deals with any law or any custom or usage having the force of law , second with its inconsistency with the rights conferred by this Article, while third declaring it void to the extent of such inconsistency. Under the Constitutional command, the Court having exclusive jurisdiction will only see that the procedure prescribed by the Statues is strictly complied with and there is no departure from it to the disadvantage of the person. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. The Court has the power to judge the fairness and justness of the procedure established by law to deprive a person of his personal liberty. Procedure means fair procedure and not formal. The procedure must answer to the test of reasonableness. Fundamental right No.19 clearly postulates that A person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process for the determination of his civil rights and in any criminal charge against him. For more convenience, right No.19 is usefully reproduced as under:-
19. Right to fair trial.- For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.
5. A plain reading the above-quoted right provides that fair trial in civil as well as in criminal matters is equally applied while the Courts of law are required to provide an Advocate to an accused-person, if he is unable to engage his counsel in a case of an offence involving imprisonment and non-providing of an Advocate on State expenses to such an accused would vitiate the provisions of rights Nos.1 and 19 of Article 4 of the Constitution, supra, which guarantee to the State-subjects that their life and liberty would not be deprived except in accordance with law. Right to access to justice also comes with such guarantee which means that the accused-person shall have a fair trial, which needs that the accused shall have services of a counsel to defend. Thus, a fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused-person.
6. The Superior Courts have also ruled that if an accused cannot afford a lawyer and is not represented by counsel, the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide legal assistance so that the accused may effectively defend himself. Any crucial proceeding conducted without affording such opportunity amounts to denial of due process and renders the proceedings unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is a settled principle that criminal courts must ensure that the accused fully understands the charge and the legal consequences of any statement recorded during trial. Therefore, a plea or confessional statement recorded without legal guidance cannot be relied upon to convict or prejudice the accused, hence, it can safely be concluded from perusal of the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court, contents of application filed by the accused-applicant before the trial Court for recalling statement recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.C. and statement made before this Court that an opportunity of fair trial has not been provided to him by the learned trial Court while recording statement under Section 242, Cr.P.C., as such, the charge framed against the accused-applicant under Section 242, Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2025 is hereby quashed while exercising powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity of legal assistance for engaging his counsel and if the accused-applicant is unable to engage his counsel for which the trial Court is legally bound to initiate process of engaging his counsel with the concerned quarter and thereafter, shall proceed with the matter as provided under law.
7. Now, coming to the impugned orders dated 10.12.2025 and 13.12.2025, the point is as to whether the same have been passed in accordance with law or not? I have perused the record and relevant provisions of law, which depict that three years punishment is provided in offence under Section 489-F APC while Section 420 APC is bailable offence. If the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. In light of the available record and overall circumstances of the case, no exceptional circumstances exist in the case at hand to justify refusal of bail, hence, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail in the given circumstances.
8. Be that as it may, the impugned orders dated 10.12.2025 and 13.12.2025 are hereby setaside while accepting the application/petition and it is hereby ordered that the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with his personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Bagh/Deputy Registrar (Judicial) High Court, provided he is not required in any other case or offence. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance.
JK/7/AJK H.C Application allowed.