Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOIZ NASEEM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Aftab Ahmad GorarMuhammad Azad
2019 Y L R Note 53 [Sindh] Before Aftab Ahmad Gorar, J MOIZ NASEEM---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.752 of 2014, decided on 19th June, 2015. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonouring of cheque ---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Offence not falling in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner contended that civil litigation was pending between the parties on several business transactions and cheque was issued as security and not for encashment---Validity---As to the fact that under what circumstances dishonored cheque was issued was a question of further inquiry---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was punishable for three years or fine or both and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances. Muhammad Azad for Applicant. Syed Mureed Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, A.P.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2015. ORDER AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---The applicant Moiz Naseem son of Naseem Ahmed is facing trial in crime No. 161/2014 under section 489-F, P.P.C. He attempt to obtain Bail Before Arrest from the trial court which was dismissed and thereafter he approached this court and he is on interim bail since 12.05.2014. I have heard counsel for the applicant and prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant at length. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is civil litigation pending between the applicant and complainant on several business transactions and these cheques were issued as security and not for encashment. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that they have issued cheque of over one crore rupees and the cheque of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been dishonored. He has further contended that appellants have already obtained interim order against some of the dishonored cheques. It is question of further inquiry that under what circumstances this cheque was issued. Even otherwise the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is punishable for a maximum period of imprisonment for three year or fine or both and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bail of the applicant is confirmed subject to furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the amount mentioned in the FIR regarding dishonored cheque. In FIR No. 161/2014 a cheque of Meezan Bank, Boat Basin Branch, Karachi for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was dishonored on 19.11.2013. Therefore, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and personal bond within 10 days this bail before arrest is confirmed. However, in case the applicant failed to submit surety within 10 days, his bail shall be deem to have been dismissed and further time shall not be granted for furnishing surety. Thereafter he may either surrender before the police or apply for the bail after arrest. MQ/M-23/Sindh Bail confirmed.