Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ AHMED VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Anwaarul HaqNaseem Ullah Khan Niazi
2013 Y L R 435
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Anwaarul Haq, J
MUSHTAQ AHMED---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.564-B of 2012, decided on 24th January, 2012.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. stated that dishonoured cheque was given by the accused to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal of purchase of some crop, but there was no documentary evidence regarding the deal mentioned in the F.I.R.---Dishonest intention of accused could validly be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Case of accused fell within S. 497(2), Cr.P.C and was one of further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was in jail for more than three months, without any progress in his trial and offence with which he was charged did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Bail petition of accused was accepted and he was admitted to bail.
Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Akram Tahir, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State with Basharat Hussain S.I., with record.
Nemo for the Complainant.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition Mushtaq Ahmed petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.LR. No.165, dated 7-10-2011, for an offence under section 489-F PPC registered at Police Station Katha Saghral, District Khushab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case; that there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that in the circumstances case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt and that petitioner is previously non-convict and is behind the bars since 8-10-2011 without any substantive progress in his trial.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner has deprived the innocent complainant from a huge amount of Rs.6,14,000; that issuance of the disputed cheque by the petitioner is admitted and dishonouring of the same is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.; that there is no mala fide alleged by the petitioner against the complainant to falsely implicate him in this case and that mere non-falling of an offence within prohibitory clause does not entitle any accused to be released on bail as a matter of right.
4. Heard. Record, perused.
5. Be that as it may, prima facie, F.I.R. speaks itself that the dishonoured cheque was given by the petitioner to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal or purchase of tomato crop but there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R. The alleged dishonest intention of the petitioner can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence and case against the petitioner, prima facie, falls within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Petitioner is behind the bars since 8-10-2011 i.e. more than three months without any progress in his trial whereas the maximum punishment provided for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is imprisonment for three years and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.
6. In view of all above, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate.
7. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
MWA/M-52/L Bail granted.