PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 72
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--If a person, otherwise is found entitled to concession of bail, his liberty cannot be curtailed on ground of charge being of heavy amount--Even otherwise, offence punishable u/S. 489-F, PPC carries maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years--There is no distinction regarding sentence which can be passed, depending upon value of cheque--Since above provision of law does not carry any such distinction, maximum sentence which can be executed upon petitioner remains to be three years if case is proved--The case of petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C--The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has settled law that in such like cases grant of bail is rule and its refusal is exception--Case against present petitioner is almost entirely reliant on documentary evidence which, admittedly is in possession of prosecution and clearly there is no possibility of petitioner tampering with same--Keeping petitioner incarcerated, who has been under arrest since 14.06.2022, would tantamount to punishing him despite fact that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty--The Courts have invariably leaned favourably in granting of bail when case is dependent upon documentary/evidence and same is in possession of prosecution agency--Moreover, even Apex Court of country does not consider pendency of cases as valid ground to deprive a citizen from benefit which law provides in his favour--It is conviction which matters as in that instance Court reaches to ultimate decision after collecting considerable, substantial and legal evidence and on mere pendency of cases liberty of any person cannot be curtailed. [Para 4 & 5] A, B & D
2009 SCMR 1488, 2011 SCMR 1708, 2020 SCMR 717, 1996 SCMR 1132, PLD 2008 SC 438 and PLD 1972 SC 81 ref.
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--
----Art. 68--Corroborative evidence--Mere registration of cases without conviction in any of them cannot be deemed sufficient to label a person as a dangerous or a habitual criminal entailing dismissal of petition--Suffice is to observe that involvement of accused in previous cases without conviction cannot be used as corroborative evidence in a criminal matter as previous bad conduct is not relevant as per article 68 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--Article 68 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides as under:
68. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply: In criminal proceedings fact that accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it become relevan.
[Para 5] C
2012 SCMR 573.
Sheikh Jamshed Hayat, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Dawood Ahmad Wains, Advocate for Complainant/ Respondent No. 2.
Malik Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 6.9.2022.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 72
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
Mian UMAR AMIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 4935-B of 2022, decided on 6.9.2022.
Order
Through the instant petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Mian Umar Amin seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 1291 of 2020 dated 24.11.2020 registered in respect of an offence under Section 489-F, PPC, at Police Station Baha-ud-Din Zakaria, District Multan.
2. Precisely stated, the case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the FIR, is that the petitioner had drawn cheque of the total value of Rs. 30,00,000/-and dishonestly issued the same to the complainant, which on presentation before the concerned bank authorities, was dishonoured.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the complainant of the case, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that the instant FIR was registered after a delay. The cheque was issued for 20.03.2020, dishonoured on 24.08.2020, however, the instant FIR was got lodged on 24.11.2020. No reasonable explanation, much less plausible, has been given by the complainant/Respondent No. 2 for this deferral of reporting the matter to the police. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that the petitioner caused the financial ruin of the Respondent No. 2, the 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. 30,00,000/-. 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, PPC 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 exception. This principle has been reiterated in the case of “Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others “ (2009 SCMR 1488), “Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others “ (2011 SCMR 1708). Reliance is also placed on the case of “Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani versus The State and Mothers” (2020 SCMR 717) wherein it has been held as under:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Prosecutor General at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that the offence alleged against the petition falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Grant of bail in such like cased is a rule and refusal 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. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated, who has been under arrest since 14.06.2022, would tantamount to punishing him despite the fact that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The Courts have invariably leaned favourably in the granting of bail when the case is dependent upon documentary evidence and the same is in possession of the prosecution agency. Reliance in this regard is placed on “Saeed Ahmed vs. The State” (1996 SCMR 1132), and “Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad and another “(PLD 2008 SC 438). It has been observed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Manzoor and 4 others versus 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.”
The learned Deputy Prosecutor General states that the petitioner is involved in other cases related to the same offence. Mere registration of cases without conviction in any of them cannot be deemed sufficient to label a person as a dangerous or a habitual criminal entailing dismissal of petition. Suffice is to observe that the involvement of accused in previous cases without conviction cannot be used as corroborative evidence in a criminal matter as previous bad conduct is not relevant as per Article 68 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article 68 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides as under:
68. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply: In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it become relevan.
Reliance is placed on case of Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan vs. The State (2012 SCMR 573) wherein it has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:
“The argument that the petitioner has been involved in two other cases of similar nature would not come in the way of grant of petition so long as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been convicted in any one of them.”
Moreover, even the Apex Court of the country does not consider the pendency of the cases as valid ground to deprive a citizen from benefit which law provides in his favour. It is conviction which matters as in that instance the Court reaches to the ultimate decision after collecting considerable, substantial and legal evidence and on mere pendency of the cases liberty of any person cannot be curtailed.
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. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit. Additionally, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial or if the petitioner misuses the concession of bail in any manner or if the petitioner absents himself from the learned trial Court, then the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments