Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-RahmanMuhammad Shoaib Khokhar
2009 Y L R 2044
2009 Y L R 2044
[Lahore]
Before Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8410/B of 2009, decided on 20th July, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Bail, grant of---Benefit of doubt--Complainant had initially lodged F.I.R. giving the number of cheque as `8025544', whereas subsequently through the supplementary statement, same had been declared to be cheque No. `8025543' dated 15-1-2009---Counsel for accused had placed upon record a copy of the cheque No.8025544, originally presented by the complainant, which was dated 2-5-2009---Contention of accused was that it was not possible that occurrence had taken place before the date given in the cheque and that in circumstances mala fide on the part of the complainant was apparent---In cheque subsequently presented by the complainant date having been tampered with, doubt was created and the benefit of the same would go to accused---Accused was behind the bars for the last four months---Offence with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. and in such like cases, grant of bail was a rule and its refusal an exception---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34; Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr. LJ 1773; Mazhar Iqbal v. The State 2006 YLR 406 and Talib Hussain v. The State 2007 PCr. LJ 1064 rel.
Muhammad Shoaib Khokhar for Petitioner.
Ms. Rahat Majeed, A.D.P.P. and Muhammad Khan S.-I. for the State.
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.325 dated 1-4-2009 registered at Police Station North Cantt. Lahore, under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a cheque of Rs.70,000 to the complainant, which, upon presentation to the bank, was dishonoured.
3.. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been on physical remand but nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case for ulterior motives; that the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. is of 13-2-2009 while the F.I.R. had been lodged on 1-4-2009 after a delay of 1 months and that no such occurrence took place as alleged in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner had lost his cheque book and in this regard, he had lodged F.I.R. No.677 dated 27-7-2008 regarding the stolen of his cheque book. It is further stated that cheque No.8025544 mentioned in the F.I.R. was dated 2-5-2009 whereas the instant F.I.R. has been lodged on 1-4-2009 and it is apparent from the same that concocted case has been registered against the petitioner. It is further stated that dishonour slip clearly shows that the cheque has been tampered with and the signatures of the petitioner differ and there is over-writing also and in view of the same, one of the stolen cheques has been manipulated to involve the petitioner in the instant case. It is also stated that the petitioner is behind the bars for four months. It is further stated that the offence, with which the petitioner is charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr. LJ 1773, Mazhar Iqbal v. The State 2006 YLR 406 and Talib Hussain v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1064.
4. On the other hand, the learned ADPP, while opposing the bail application, has stated that through the supplementary statement the complainant corrected the cheque number as 8025543 dated 15-1-2009, as such, there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In the instant case, the complainant had initially lodged F.I.R. giving the number of the cheque as 8025544 whereas subsequently through the supplementary statement the same has been declared to be cheque No.8025543 dated 15-1-2009. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed upon record a copy of the cheque No. "8025544 which is dated 2-5-2009 for a sum of Rs.70,000 and his contention is that it is not possible that occurrence had taken place before the date given in the cheque, as such, mala fide on the part of the complainant is apparent. It is apparent from the perusal of the cheque No.8025543 given by the complainant to the police that the date in the cheque has been tampered with and in view of the same, doubt is created and the benefit of which goes to the accused/petitioner. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last four months. The offence, with which the petitioner is charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ. 1773, Mazhar Iqbal v. The State 2006 YLR 406 and Talib Hussain v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1064.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-534/L Bail granted.