PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 180
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--The alleged dispute between parties can only be resolved by trial Court, seized with powers, after recording evidence--Admittedly offence with which petitioner is charged is punishable with three years R.I. or with fine and it does not fall under prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Where a case falls within ambit of non-prohibitory clause concession of granting bail must favourably be considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases--No exceptional circumstance has been pointed out by complainant to restrain grant of bail--Case of petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C--The petitioner is behind bars and his person is no more required for further investigation--No useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner behind bars--Bail allowed.
[Para 4] A & B
2011 SCMR 1708 & 2009 SCMR 1488.
Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Imdad Hussain Chatha, D.P.G. for State.
Complainant in person.
Date of hearing: 8.3.2022.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 180
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 7878-B of 2022, decided on 8.3.2022.
Order
Through this petition u/S. 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.No. 592 dated 03.11.2021 registered u/S. 489-F, PPC, at Police Station Shorekot, District Jhang.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case as per crime report got lodged by Khalid Javed complainant are that the petitioner was his employee, who obtained an amount of Rs. 13,65,000/- from him
and issued cheque for the said amount in his favour, which was
dis-honoured from the concerned bank on presentation.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It divulges from record that though the disputed cheque along with dis-honour slip is available on record but the version of the petitioner is that he was employee of the complainant and the disputed cheque was issued by him at the time of obtaining job as guarantee and the same was never meant for encashment but the complainant with malafide intention and in order to humiliate and pressurize him, got the same dis-honoured. On the other hand the version of the complainant in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner issued the disputed cheque in order to clear his liability of amount which he borrowed from him. The alleged dispute between the parties can only be resolved by the learned trial Court, seized with the powers, after recording evidence. Admittedly the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with three years R.I. or with fine and it does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Riaz Jafar Natiq vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) and Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), ordaining that where a case falls within the ambit of non-prohibitory clause the concession of granting bail must favourably be considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases. No exceptional circumstance has been pointed out by the complainant to restrain grant of bail. In view of above, the case of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars and his person is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz, is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments