Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2005 M L D 1388

2005 M L D 1388

[Lahore]

Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J

Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5380-B of 2004, decided on 2nd November, 2004.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

-----S. 497(2)--:Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. itself showed that, complainant and accused were locked in a business dispute requiring rendition of accounts---During efforts made for resolution of said dispute arbitrators had been appointed and cheque in question had been executed by accused in favour of one of the arbitrators---No dispute existed to the effect that accused did not have any obligation towards said arbitrator in whose favour relevant cheque had been issued and said arbitrator had never produced said cheque before concerned Bank for its encashment nor he had filed any suit or any criminal proceedings against accused in that connection---Question as to whether complainant was entitled to get relevant cheque encashed on his own or the question whether petitioner was under any obligation towards said arbitrator regarding any payment required further probe---Offence allegedly committed by accused did not attract prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail in such cases was a rule and its refusal was an exception---Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt, he was admitted to bail.

Zafar Iqbal Chohan and Abdul Razzaq Sheikh for Petitioner.

Shaukat Ali Khawaja for the State.

Noor Muhammad Awan and Mian Shahid Iqbal for the Complainant.

ORDER

Through this petition Mian Muhammad Saeed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.156 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad on 19-3-2004 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties going and through the record it has been noticed that according to the F.I.R. itself the complainant and the petitioner were. locked in a business dispute requiring rendition of accounts. It is admitted at all hands that during the efforts made for resolution of such dispute some arbitrators had been appointed including one Haji Abdul Ghani and the cheque in issue had been executed by the petitioner in favour of the said arbitrator namely Haji Abdul Ghani. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not have any obligation towards Haji Abdul Ghani in whose favour the relevant cheque had been issued and Haji Abdul Ghani had never produced the said cheque before the concerned Bank for its encashment nor he has so far filed any suit or any criminal proceedings against the petitioner in that connection. Thus, the question as to whether the complainant of this case was entitled to get the relevant cheque encashed on his own or the question whether the petitioner was under any obligation towards Haji Abdul Ghani regarding any payment are questions which necessarily require further probe at this stage. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such cases is a rule and its refusal is merely an exception. No special circumstance has been found by me in this case to depart from the beaten track in this regard. ?????? 3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, B allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with on surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M-1079/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant