2019 YLR 2125 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TAHIR MASOOD BUTT
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--- Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Business transaction between the parties---Effect---Cheque issued as guarantee ---Scope---Absconsion---Effect---Petitioner allegedly used to purchase motorcycles from the complainant on credit basis and his cheque to the tune of Rs. 300,000/- was dishonored---Complainant contended that petitioner had lost relief not only for being remained absconded but also being involved in similar cases---First Information Report was lodged after considerable delay of almost twenty-seven days without any plausible explanation---Record did not establish that the cheque in question was issued for repayment of any loan or fulfilment of any financial obligation, which was a sine qua non to attract the provisions of S.489-F, P.P.C.--Narration of crime report made the same clear that there was business transaction between the parties---Complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence was necessarily a matter of further inquiry in terms of S.497, Cr.P.C ---Cheque was, admittedly, issued as a guarantee by the petitioner for the purchase of motorcycles, meaning thereby that there was civil liability of contractual obligation against the petitioner---No cash amount had actually been taken by the petitioner from the complainant---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., so the grant of bail was rule and refusal thereof was an exception ---Refusal of bail on account of absconsion proceeded primarily upon a question of propriety but question of right prevailed over the question of propriety---Record revealed no conviction on the part of the petitioner in similar cases---Investigation was complete and petitioner was no more required to police for further investigation---No recovery had been effected from the petitioner, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJN 21 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TANVEER HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonouring of cheque---Ad interim bail, confirmation of---Ulterior motive of complainant---Complainant had alleged that accused issued a cheque for Rs. 41,26,089 to him in the backdrop of his admission to have stolen certain articles from the mills which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds---Disputed cheque had been issued by the accused merely as a guarantee which could be used against him for a future liability---No liability existed on the day of issuance of the cheque to the complainant---Such nature of instrument was somewhat alien to the requirement of S. 489-F, P.P.C. as the same did not give coverage to a liability likely to occur in future---Disputed cheque had already been dishonoured by the Bank on 21.07.2015 but complainant lodged FIR against the accused on 16.09.2015 which showed an element of malice on his part---Pronote allegedly executed by the accused in favour of the complainant showed that accused was loanee of same amount as mentioned in FIR and in the disputed cheque which meant that effect of said instrument was not clear as regards the FIR itself---Probability could not be ruled out that accused might have been falsely involved in the case due to some malice or ulterior motives of complainant---Ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2018 YLRN 157 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Unexplained delay of more than two and half months in registration of FIR showed that FIR had been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation---Words "only for guarantee cheque", were mentioned on the back of cheque in dispute, which denoted that said cheque had not been issued for fulfilment of any financial obligation, rather same was a security cheque---Attraction of S.489-F, P.P.C., qua accused would be determined by the Trial Court---Accused was a previous non-convict; he had already joined the investigation which was complete---Sending accused behind the bars at such stage, would not serve beneficial purpose---False implication of accused by the complainant after joining hands with local Police, could not be ruled out---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2017 YLRN 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : ZULFIQAR ALI Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Matter was reported to the Police after about 1-1/2 years of dishonouring of cheque in question---Conduct of the complainant had shown that he was indolent in lodging FIR against accused, and delay in the same was unexplained---Police record had revealed that a blank "guarantee cheque" was issued by accused in favour of complainant on behalf of his brother who had business deal with the complainant---Prima facie, accused had been roped in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of complainant---The cheque in question, was already in possession of the Police, person of accused was not required to the Police for effecting any recovery---Even otherwise, the complainant had got alternative remedy available by way of filing suit for recovery against accused in terms of negotiable instruments---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLD 1104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BILAL AHMAD
Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE/A.S.J.
Ss. 20 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction of Banking Court---Cheque issued to Financial Institution by customer as guarantee for return of loan facility---Dishonouring of cheque---Order for registration of FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C.---Petitioner impugned order of Justice of Peace whereby FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was ordered to be registered against him for dishonouring of cheque issued by him as guarantee to the Financial Institution---Held, that per S. 7 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001; no court other than the Banking Court shall have or exercise jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which jurisdiction of the Banking Court was extended to under the said Ordinance---Section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 dealt with the dishonest issuance of cheque and punishment of said offence had been provided in this section and therefore it was obvious that in said matter jurisdiction only lay with the Banking Court and not before any other court---Under S. 20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, offences under the Ordinance shall be bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable and S. 154, Cr.P.C. came in field where the commission of a cognizable offence was disclosed---When the statute itself made it clear that the offence was not cognizable, then registration for a criminal case/FIR by local police could not be permitted---High Court observed that even though S. 489-F was inserted after promulgation of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001; but same would not give it an overriding effect over the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was a special law---Impugned order was set aside--- Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : MUZAMMAL KHATOON
O. XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3 & Appendix B, Form No. 4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.159---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Institution of summary suit on negotiable instrument---Dishonouring of cheque issued as guarantee ---Suit for recovery of money---Application for leave to appear and defend the suit---Limitation--Plaintiffs-respondents filed suit for recovery of money wherein an application for permission to appear and defend the suit was moved by the defendant-petitioner which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Contention of defendant-petitioner was that he was not served in accordance with law---Validity---Report of the Process Server did not show that he delivered the copy of the plaint and other documents appended therewith---In a suit under O. XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C., the summons was to be issued on Form IV of Appendix-B and it was imperative that the copy of the plaint with annexures should be sent under O. XXXVII, R. 2(1), C.P.C. along with the summons and without fulfillment of that legal requirement, the service was not complete and the period of limitation did not start---Copy of the plaint did not appear to have been sent along with the summons, the period of ten days prescribed for submission of the application for leave to appear and defend the suit under Art. 159 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not start---Defendant-petitioner did not owe any amount directly and he had issued the cheque as surety for his son, who was involved in a case under S.489-F, P.P.C. and according to the agreement deed executed between the parties, the cheque was issued as guarantee and the predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents also reserved the right to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted to son of the defendant-petitioner---Whether the suit under O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C. was maintainable and the defendant-petitioner was in fact liable to make the payment required adjudication and verdict of the Trial Court and such aspect of the matter alone was sufficient to allow the application submitted by the defendant-petitioner---When important questions of fact and law emerged, then the court must exercise its jurisdiction under O. XXXVII, R. 3, C.P.C. and should not hesitate in granting the leave to appear and defend the suit---Trial Court erred in dismissing the application by ignoring the important legal aspects of the matter and committed material irregularity causing gross miscarriage of justice---Impugned order was not sustainable under the law---Revision petition was accepted and impugned order was set aside and leave to appear and defend the suit was granted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 CLD 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : MUZAMMAL KHATOON
O. XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3 & Appendix B, Form No. 4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 159--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Institution of summary suit on negotiable instrument---Dishonouring of cheque issued as guarantee ---Suit for recovery of money---Application for leave to appear and defend the suit---Limitation---Plaintiffs-respondents filed suit for recovery of money wherein application for permission to appear and defend the suit was moved by the defendant-petitioner which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Contention of defendant-petitioner was that he was not served in accordance with law---Validity---Report of the Process Server did not show that he delivered the copy of the plaint and other documents appended therewith---In a suit under O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C., the summons was to be issued on Form IV of Appendix-B and it was imperative that the copy of the plaint with annexures should be sent under O.XXXVII, R.2(1), C.P.C. along with the summons and without fulfilment of that legal requirement, the service was not complete and the period of limitation did not start---Copy of the plaint did not appear to have been sent along with the summons, the period of ten days prescribed for submission of the application for leave to appear and defend the suit under Art.159 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not start---Defendant-petitioner did not owe any amount directly and he had issued the cheque as surety for his son, who was involved in a case under S.489-F, P.P.C. and according to the agreement deed executed between the parties, the cheque was issued as guarantee and the predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents also reserved the right to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted to son of the defendant-petitioner---Whether the suit under O.XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C. was maintainable and the defendant-petitioner was in fact liable to make the payment required adjudication and verdict of the Trial Court and such aspect of the matter alone was sufficient to allow the application submitted by the defendant-petitioner---When important questions of fact and law emerged, then the court must exercise its jurisdiction under O.XXXVII, R.3, C.P.C. and should not hesitate in granting the leave to appear and defend the suit---Trial Court erred in dismissing the application by ignoring the important legal aspects of the matter and committed material irregularity causing gross miscarriage of justice---Impugned order was not sustainable under the law---Revision petition was accepted and impugned order was set aside and leave to appear and defend the suit was granted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF CHOUDHRY
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of five months, without assigning any sufficient reason for such delay---Complainant, prior to registration of present case had also got recorded a case under S.489-F, P.P.C. against accused with the same allegation, but the complainant had concealed that fact---Plea of accused that cheques were given to complainant as guarantee , could not be discarded outright---Dishonest intention in issuing the cheque was sine qua non to attract the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., which was yet to be established during course of evidence---Alleged guilt of accused, in circumstances was necessarily a matter of further probe---No recovery was pending against accused---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Investigation of the case was complete and accused was behind the bars since 22-1-2014, and accused was no more required by the Police for further investigation---No progress in the trial, despite submission of challan---Accused's incarceration, was not likely to serve any cause of justice---Bail could not be refused, in such like cases, as a matter of punishment---Prosecution had not produced any material with regard to accused's conviction in any of other criminal cases allegedly registered against him---Mere pendency of any other criminal case, was no hindrance for grant of post-arrest bail to accused, who otherwise was entitled to the relief on merits---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 MLD 506 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ASIM ALI KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Cheque issued on basis of a business transaction---Dispute of civil nature---Delay in lodging F.I.R.---Effect---Accused had purchased some leather from the complainant and for payment of outstanding amount, he issued nine cheques in favour of complainant which were dishonoured on presentation before the Bank---Plea of accused was that cheques in question were only given as a guarantee /security---Validity---Although accused was named in the F.I.R., but there was an unexplained delay of more than 5 months in lodging the F.I.R.---Relationship between complainant and accused was that of a seller and purchaser---Dispute between the parties concerned adjustment of a liability and complainant himself failed to mention the dates on which leather was purchased by the accused---Prima facie, dispute seemed to be of a civil nature and for such purpose complainant had the remedy to file a suit for recovery or rendition of accounts before the court of competent jurisdiction---Question as to whether cheques in question were issued towards fulfilment of an "obligation" or as "security" would be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Offence alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was behind bars for the last eight months and was no more required for further investigation---Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 PLD 173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 489-F & 384---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail---Cheque issued as guarantee /security---Recipient of the cheque using the same to exert pressure on the issuer to force him to surrender to his illegal demands---Such misuse of S.489-F, P.P.C for the purpose of securing money would be termed as extortion.
Citation Name : 2013 PLD 173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 489-F & 384---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail---Cheque issued as guarantee /security---Recipient of the cheque using the same to exert pressure on the issuer to force him to surrender to his illegal demands---Such misuse of S.489-F, P.P.C for the purpose of securing money would be termed as extortion.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 874 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : Mst. RUBINA QURESHI Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Cheque issued as a guarantee instrument---Dispute of civil nature---Allegation against the accused-lady was that she issued a cheque to the complainant in the backdrop of an agreement to sell, which was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds---Agreement was executed between the parties, wherein it had been mentioned that accused issued the cheque in question as a guarantee instrument to the complainant---Fact that cheque was a guarantee instrument had been impliedly admitted by the complainant in another agreement executed between the parties---Before complainant reported present matter to the police, accused had already filed civil suits qua matter in issue against the complainant, which were pending adjudication---Controversy between the parties was of civil nature and could only be resolved by the civil court, where suits filed by accused were already pending---Question as to whether cheque in question was a guarantee instrument or not and what repercussions would it have on the merits of the trial of the accused, was a significant factor which could only be gone into by the Trial Court after recording evidence at trial---Accused was a lady, therefore, she was covered under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. and her involvement in the present case due to calculated or ulterior motive of complainant could not be ruled out---Ad interim pre-arrest bail of accused was confirmed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 MLD 1519 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIR
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Complainant had allegedly provided a loan to the accused, who in order to fulfil his undertaking issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, which cheque was dishonored on presentation---Contentions of the accused were that the complainant had lodged an F.I.R. against his brother under S. 489-F, P.P.C, but the matter was compromised on the agreement that the brother of the accused would transfer his land to the complainant; that the cheque in question was provided to the complainant as a guarantee for the said agreement; that the accused had sent a legal notice to the complainant for return of the cheque in question; that a declaratory suit concerning the present matter had been filed by the complainant, which was still pending, and that the accused did not have previous record of cases similar to the present one---Validity---Section 489-F, P.P.C was not a device for recovery of an amount/loan and if any such recovery was required to be made, aggrieved person might file a suit for recovery before the court of competent jurisdiction---Offence alleged against the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C, and in such like cases bail was a rule and its refusal an exception---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAHID IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, refusal of---Cheques in question had been admitted to have been issued by accused and no evidence had been shown to indicate that the said cheques were issued by way of guarantee ---Petitioner would have the opportunity to prove his assertion that the cheques were issued as a guarantee at the trial---Bail was refused.
Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 752 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ASAD ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, refusal of---Accused who had not denied the issuance of cheques in question, had stated that the cheques were given in a business transaction as a guarantee ; and major part of amount had been paid, but no proof of payment or any business transaction had been brought on record---Cheques were dishonoured due to lack of funds and accused knowingly that he had no balance in the account, issued the cheques, so had defrauded the complainant---Offence with which accused had been charged, though did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P. C., but the grant of bail to accused in every case not hit by the prohibitory clause, was not a rule of universal application, because each case had to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances---Accused being not entitled to grant of bail, his bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2009 PLD 541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION HAJIPURA, SIALKOT
S. 489-F---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Accused petitioner had taken a loan of Rupees Fifty lac from the complainant-Bank, but due to recession in business he could not deposit four monthly instalments and on demand of Bank furnished a guarantee cheuqe of Rupees fifty lac, which was not meant for immediate encashment---However, Bank on the said cheque having been dishonourned got the present case registered against the petitioner under S.489-F, P.P.C. vide the impugned F.I.R.---Validity---Aims and objects of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and S.489-F, P.P.C. being entirely different, could not be amalgamated or confused with each other at the whims of either of, the parties---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a complete Code providing procedure for the Banking Courts, specially constituted under the said Ordinance, for recovery of loans from the defaulters and dealing with the commission of any offence as enumerated under S.7 of the said Ordinance---Banks or their administrations, therefore, were debarred from taking the advantage of S.489-F, P.P.C. through initiation of proceedings against the defaulters on dishonouring of any cheque issued by the loanee, who had availed any finance facility---Registration of the present case by the complainant-Bank through its Manager was a mala fide action against the petitioner, as it could avail remedy through the - Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Registration of case under S.489-F, P.P.C. against the accused petitioner being mala fide and abuse of process of law, could not be allowed to sustain on record---Impugned F.I.R. was consequently quashed and constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2009 CLD 1149 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER
S.489-F---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Accused petitioner had taken a loan of Rupees fifty lac from the complainant Bank, but due to recession in business he could not deposit four monthly instalments and on demand of Bank furnished a guarantee cheque of Rupees fifty lac, which was not meant for immediate encashment---However, Bank on the said cheque having been dishonoured got the present case registered against the petitioner under S.489-F, P.P.C. vide the impugned F.I.R.---Validity---Aims and objects of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and S.489-F, P.P.C., being entirely different, could not be amalgamated or confused with each other at the whims of either of the parties--- Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was a complete code providing procedure for the Banking Courts, specially constituted under the said Ordinance, for recovery of loans from the defaulters and dealing with the commission of any offence as enumerated under S.7 of the said Ordinance---Banks or their administrations, therefore, were debarred from taking the advantage of S.489-F, P.P.C. through initiation of proceedings against the defaulters on dishonouring of any cheque issued by the loanee, who had availed any finance facility---Registration of the present case by the complainant Bank through its Manager was a mala fide action against the petitioner, as it could avail remedy through the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001--Registration of case under S.489-F, P.P.C. against the accused petitioner being mala fide and abuse of process of law, could not be allowed to sustain on record---Impugned F.I.R. was consequently quashed and constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 518 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TAHIR RASHID
Side Opponent : State
---S. 489-F---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of orders---Investigation in the case had prima facie been conducted mala fide and cancellation report of F.I.R. was prepared merely relying upon the version of respondents/accused party that cheque in question was issued only as a guarantee for a person who had dealing with complainant/petitioner---Cheque in dispute had been issued by respondent in favour of petitioner, which was presented before the Bank, twice, but same was dishonoured each time due to insufficiency of funds and prima facie offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was made out---Whether cheque in dispute had been issued as a guarantor or towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation required recording of evidence and it was the function of the Court to decide whether there was some element of dishonesty on the part of executant of the cheque---Magistrate had agreed with the police report through impugned order in a mechanical manner and he appeared to have not applied judicial mind to consider the facts of the case---Impugned order though was an executive order, but Magistrate was to pass speaking order and he, in no way, was bound by the police opinion to agree with the same---Police opinion was not binding on the Court---Magistrate did not properly exercise jurisdiction vested in him, which had rendered impugned order illegal and without jurisdiction---High Court being competent to interfere therewith, constitutional petition was accepted and impugned order was set aside, with direction to remand case to Magistrate, who would pass fresh orders on cancellation report, submitted by the police within specified period.
Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SHEZAN SANAULLAH
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Bail, grant of---Civil Court was to determine as to whether the agreement in question was enforceable under the law or not--Cheque which was dishonoured by the Bank on presentation had been issued by the first party as .guarantee in favour of the second party---Second party was to recover the amount through the Court of law at the risk and cost of the first party---Case against accused, therefore, to all intents and purposes was of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail in such cases was a rule and refusal an exception---Accused being a lady was also entitled to grant of bail under first proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C.---Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and for grant of bail after arrest being altogether different, dismissal of the application of the accused for pre-arrest bail by the High Court earlier had no bearing on the merits of the present application for post-arrest bail---Accused was in jail for the last about two months---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
0 Comments