--Petitioner is named in the FIR and there is no denial to the fact that the cheque in question pertained to petitioner’s bank account, yet the offence under Section 489-F, PPC with which petitioner has been charged, entails punishment up to three years as such the same fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 977

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--No prohibitory clause--Post arrest bail--Grant of--Petitioner is named in the FIR and there is no denial to the fact that the cheque in question pertained to petitioner’s bank account, yet the offence under Section 489-F, PPC with which petitioner has been charged, entails punishment up to three years as such the same fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Petition in hand is allowed.       [P. 978] A

PLD 1995 SC 34 ref.

Ch. Abdul Rehman Zouq, Advocate for Petitioner.

Syed Nadeem Haider Rizvi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for State.

Mr. Tariq Mehmood Dogar Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing 3.3.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 977
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Shakil Ahmed, J.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. 1185-B of 2022, decided on 3.3.2022.

Order

Instant petition has been filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. by Muhammad Imran petitioner seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No. 443 of 2021 dated 04.11.2021 registered at Police Station Bahadur Shah, District Sahiwal for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC. Earlier applications of the petitioner for the same relief were dismissed by learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide orders dated 01.02.2022 and 11.02.2022, respectively.

2. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a Cheque No. 19694137 amounting of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of before the complainant and same was dishonoured on its presentation the concerned bank.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned DDPP, it has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is no denial to the fact that the cheque in question pertains to petitioner’s bank account, yet the offence under Section 489-F, PPC with which petitioner has been charged, entails punishment upto three years as such the same fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is by now a settled principle of law that where case of an accused does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause, grant of bail in such like cases is rule and refusal is an exception. There is no cavil to the proposition that in appropriate cases bail can be withheld in cases falling outside the

purview of prohibitory clause provided there exist some recognized exceptional circumstances, however in the case in hand learned counsel for the complainant and learned DDPP remained unable to hint out even a single circumstance whereby case of the petitioner may fall within the purview of exceptions in view of the dicta laid down in case titled “Tariq Bashir v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34) to decline the relief of post arrest bail to the petitioner.

4. The upshot of above discussion is that 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. 200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(K.Q.B.)          Bail allowed