PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 291
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 44861-B of 2024, decided on 6.11.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Post-arrest bail--Dismissal of--Dishonoured of cheque--Reasonable grounds are available on record to connect petitioner with commission of alleged offence--Though punishment of alleged offence does not fall in prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. yet Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that another case of similar nature arising out of FIR registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot is in credit of petitioner as accused, therefore, case of petitioner falls in exception where bail cannot be granted even in cases not falling within ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. [Para 2] A
PLD 2021 SC 903.
Mr. Rizwan Ali Qadri, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Syed Muhammad Afzal Wasti, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 6.11.2024.
Order
Through instant petition, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din (petitioner/ accused) seeks post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 1250/2024 dated 10.05.2024 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and going through available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that briefly as per Crime Report (F.I.R.) got recorded by Shehzad Mir (complainant), complainant at different times gave Rs 25,00,000/- to Ghulam Mohiud-Din (present petitioner) who returned Rs. 9,88,680/- to the complainant and also issued cheque valuing Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonoured on presentation by the bank. On Court’s query, learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of Investigating Officer of the case (present in Court) and after himself going through the available record apprises that aforementioned allegation levelled against the petitioner has been established after thorough investigation. Thus reasonable grounds are available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Though punishment of the alleged offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. yet learned Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that another case of similar nature arising out of FIR No. 1249/2024 dated 10.05.2024 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot is in the credit of the petitioner as accused, therefore, case of the petitioner falls in the exception where bail cannot be granted even in the cases not falling within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Muhammad Imran versus The State and others” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 903); relevant portion of the same is hereby reproduced:-
... We have heard the learned counsel and have examined the record of the case. We are cognizant of the fact that the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail in such a matter is a rule and refusal an exception. The grounds for the case to fall within the exceptions meriting denial of bail include (a) the likelihood of the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. The prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exceptions on the basis of the material on the record. See Tariq Bashir, Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Tanveer and order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No. 529 of 2021.
4. Record shows that the petitioner has been booked in as much as eight criminal cases under the same offence with different complainants and involving sizable amounts of money. These cases span over the years 2018 to 2020 and three cases have been registered after the registration of the instant case. Even though the petitioner has obtained bail in those cases, it does, prima facie, establish that the petitioner is prone to repeating the offence. Petitioner having been declared an absconder in this case for over one and a half year generates the apprehension that the petitioner may avoid standing trial and hence delay the prosecution of the case. The material on record makes the case of the petitioner falls under two exceptions to the rule of grant of bail as mentioned above.
(emphasis added).
3. In view of above, no case for grant of post-arrest bail has been made out. Therefore, instant petition is without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.
4. It goes without saying that observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissedPLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 291
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 44861-B of 2024, decided on 6.11.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Post-arrest bail--Dismissal of--Dishonoured of cheque--Reasonable grounds are available on record to connect petitioner with commission of alleged offence--Though punishment of alleged offence does not fall in prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. yet Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that another case of similar nature arising out of FIR registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot is in credit of petitioner as accused, therefore, case of petitioner falls in exception where bail cannot be granted even in cases not falling within ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. [Para 2] A
PLD 2021 SC 903.
Mr. Rizwan Ali Qadri, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Syed Muhammad Afzal Wasti, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 6.11.2024.
Order
Through instant petition, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din (petitioner/ accused) seeks post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 1250/2024 dated 10.05.2024 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and going through available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that briefly as per Crime Report (F.I.R.) got recorded by Shehzad Mir (complainant), complainant at different times gave Rs 25,00,000/- to Ghulam Mohiud-Din (present petitioner) who returned Rs. 9,88,680/- to the complainant and also issued cheque valuing Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonoured on presentation by the bank. On Court’s query, learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of Investigating Officer of the case (present in Court) and after himself going through the available record apprises that aforementioned allegation levelled against the petitioner has been established after thorough investigation. Thus reasonable grounds are available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Though punishment of the alleged offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. yet learned Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that another case of similar nature arising out of FIR No. 1249/2024 dated 10.05.2024 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot is in the credit of the petitioner as accused, therefore, case of the petitioner falls in the exception where bail cannot be granted even in the cases not falling within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Muhammad Imran versus The State and others” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 903); relevant portion of the same is hereby reproduced:-
... We have heard the learned counsel and have examined the record of the case. We are cognizant of the fact that the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail in such a matter is a rule and refusal an exception. The grounds for the case to fall within the exceptions meriting denial of bail include (a) the likelihood of the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. The prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exceptions on the basis of the material on the record. See Tariq Bashir, Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Tanveer and order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No. 529 of 2021.
4. Record shows that the petitioner has been booked in as much as eight criminal cases under the same offence with different complainants and involving sizable amounts of money. These cases span over the years 2018 to 2020 and three cases have been registered after the registration of the instant case. Even though the petitioner has obtained bail in those cases, it does, prima facie, establish that the petitioner is prone to repeating the offence. Petitioner having been declared an absconder in this case for over one and a half year generates the apprehension that the petitioner may avoid standing trial and hence delay the prosecution of the case. The material on record makes the case of the petitioner falls under two exceptions to the rule of grant of bail as mentioned above.
(emphasis added).
3. In view of above, no case for grant of post-arrest bail has been made out. Therefore, instant petition is without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.
4. It goes without saying that observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments