Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 MLD 951
Court / Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court
Parties: Naqib Ullah Khan vs StateHonorable Justice Abdul FayazKamran Marwat,Abdul Nasir
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court, officially reported as 2026 MLD 951. In this matter between Naqib Ullah Khan and StateHonorable Justice Abdul FayazKamran Marwat,Abdul Nasir, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
305
2026 M L D 951 [Peshawar (Bannu Bench)] Before Abdul Fayaz, J Naqib Ullah Khan---Petitioner Versus The STate and another---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No. 572-B of 2025, decided on 18th December, 2025. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Offences not attracting the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Further inquiry---Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs. 24,210,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., carries a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and therefore, did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---In such category of offences, the grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception---It was alleged by the accused-petitioner that the cheque was neither issued dishonestly nor with the intent to defraud the complainant, but was merely furnished as a guarantee-cum-security cheque---In such circumstances, it would be a matter for determination during trial as to whether any business transaction actually existed between the parties and what was the true picture and purpose of the cheque in question---Said aspect, prima facie, rendered the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Jehanzeb Khan v. The State through Additional Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2020 SCMR 268; Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34; Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another PLD 2017 SC 733 and Rao Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and another 2023 PCr.LJ 499 rel.
Kamran Marwat for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, State Counsel for the State. Abdul Nasir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th December, 2025. Judgment Abdul Fayaz, J.---Instant is a bail application of petitioner Naqib Ullah Khan son of Gul Zard Ali Khan resident of Bahader Khan Surani, Tehsil and District Bannu, who is seeking his post-arrest bail in connection with case FIR No.531 dated 06.11.2025 under section 489-F P.P.C, Police Station, Township, District Bannu, after he was declined similar relief by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu vide order dated 26.11.2025. 2. Briefly stated, on an application moved by the complainant, Muhammad Ibrahim, an inquiry regarding the issuance and dishonour of a cheque was conducted by the local police of Police Station Township, Bannu. Upon completion of the said inquiry and after obtaining legal opinion from the competent quarter, the present case was registered. 3. The case of the complainant is that he enjoyed cordial and friendly relations with the petitioner, Naqib Ullah, and in furtherance thereof, the complainant allegedly advanced an amount of Rs. 24,210,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Forty-Two Lacs and Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner on 28.06.2025 for the purchase of four vehicles. To formalize the transaction, a written agreement was executed on a stamp paper on the same date. It is further alleged that in discharge of his obligation under the said agreement, the petitioner handed over a cheque bearing No. 1963423496, drawn on MCB Bank, with the mutual understanding that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to repay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period of two months, i.e, by 28.08.2025, the complainant would be at liberty to present the said cheque for encashment. However, upon presentation of the cheque before the concerned bank, the same was returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. Consequently, on the report of the complainant, the instant case came to be registered. 4. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for complainant assisted by the learned AAG for the State heard and record perused. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without entering into a deeper appreciation of the merits of the case, it prima facie transpires that the offence alleged under Section 489-F P.P.C. carries a maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment and, therefore, does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. In such category of offences, the grant of bail is a rule, whereas its refusal is an exception. This settled principle has been consistently expounded by the superior Courts in a plethora of judgments. In the case of "Jehanzeb Khan v. The State through Additional Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" [2020 SCMR 1268] and "Tariq Bashir and 05 others v. The State" [PLD 1995 SC 34], the august Supreme Court has categorically held that "bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause will be declined/refused only in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances." Likewise, in the case "Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another" [PLD 2017 SC 733], the august Supreme Court observed as under:- "6. We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, particularly accused persons charged for such offences are unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions. This phenomenon is growing tremendously, thus, cannot be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court is wasted in disposal of such petitions. This Court is purely a constitutional Court to deal with intricate questions of law and Constitution and to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where law points require interpretation." Similarly, in the case of "Rao Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and another" [2023 PCr.LJ 499], in an identical matter, it has been held as under:- "6. The maximum punishment of offence provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. is not more than imprisonment for three years or fine or both, as such, the same is not covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of the dictum laid down in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, in non-bailable offences falling in the second category i.e. punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the learned prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant, as enumerated in Tariq Bashir supra. Further wisdom can be extracted from the cases titled Muhammad Tanveer v. The State PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733 and Abdul Saboor v. The State through A.G.Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another -2022 SCMR 592." 6. In view of the foregoing legal position, there remains no cavil 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, in ordinary circumstances, an accused alleged to have issued a cheque which has subsequently been dishonoured-whether on account of insufficient funds or otherwise__is entitled to the concession of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount in question was advanced as an investment or share in a business venture and that the cheque was issued in connection with the said business transaction. It is argued that the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the time of issuance of the cheque is conspicuously absent, as the cheque was neither issued dishonestly nor with the intent to defraud the complainant, but was merely furnished as a guarantee-cum-security cheque. In these circumstances, it would be a matter for determination during trial as to whether any business transaction actually existed between the parties and what was the true nature and purpose of the cheque in question. This aspect, prima facie, renders the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the instant bail petition is allowed and the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/-(Rupees Five Lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD concerned. The sureties shall be local, reliable, and men of means. JK/53/P Petition allowed.