PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 78
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.
MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD alias SAIFI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 17420-B of 2022, decided on 26.4.2022.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--post arrest bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--P etitioner, he is an employee in a private company and neither he took such huge amount from complainant nor issued cheque in question, however, such controversy would be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--It is straightaway observed that maximum punishment of offence provided under Section 489-F, PPC is not more than three years, as such, same is not covered under sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--The petitioner is behind bars since his arrest and his person is no more required to police for purposes of further investigation--No useful purpose would be served while keeping accused petitioner behind bars for indefinite period--If accused/petitioner is found guilty during trial, he would be convicted and sentenced accordingly, but if he is acquitted, there would be no compensation for deprivation of his liberty by putting him behind bars in case of refusal of bail--Bail allowed.
[Para 4 & 5] A & B
PLD 2017 SC 733, 2022 SCMR 592, 2021 SCMR 1227.
Rai Ashfaq Ahmed Kharal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Moeen Ali, DPG for State.
Rai Sarfraz, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 26.4.2022.
Order
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Shahzad alias Saifi (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail
in case FIR No. 131/2021, dated 28.03.2021, registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. with Police Station City Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per contents of crime report is that he borrowed an amount of
Rs. 85,00,000/- from the complainant and for its repayment dishonestly issued a cheque of Askari Bank, Sheikhpura Branch, which was dishonoured on its presentation before the concerned Bank.
3. Arguments heard and record available on the file perused.
4. The careful scrutiny of record available on the file reveals that there is delay of 46-days in lodging the crime report, for which, no valid and plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. As per contents of crime report, the complainant lent the amount in question to the petitioner for the purpose of starting business of oil on his request and in lieu thereof, he (petitioner) issued the cheque in question, however, no documentary proof whatsoever except oral statements of witnesses regarding handing over such huge amount to the petitioner has been produced by the complainant. As per petitioner, he is an employee in a private company and neither he took such huge amount from the complainant nor issued the cheque in question, however, such controversy would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. It is straightaway observed that maximum punishment of offence provided under Section 489-F, PPC is not more than three years, as such, the same is not covered under sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of case titled “Tariq Bashir vs. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34), in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years), the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases for example--
(a) Where there is likelihood of the abscondence of the accused;
(b) Where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the, offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and
(d) Where the accused is a previous convict.
No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the learned prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant as provided in Tariq Bashir’s Case supra. Further reliance can be placed on cases titled “Muhammad Tanveer versus The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733) and “Abdul Saboor versus The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another” (2022 SCMR 592). So far as, argument of learned counsel for the complainant regarding registration of six other cases of similar. Nature/offence against the petitioner, the same is not a bar to deprive a person from grant of bail, if he is otherwise entitled for the same relief in view of case law titled “Syeda Sumera Andleeb versus The State and another” (2021 SCMR 1227).
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his person is no more required to the police for the purposes of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. If the accused/petitioner is found guilty during trial, he would be convicted and sentenced accordingly, but if he is acquitted, there would be no compensation for deprivation of his liberty by putting him behind the bars in case of refusal of bail.
6. Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five hundred thousand. Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail granted
0 Comments