Bail can be granted even if amount in 489-F is excessive
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Manzoor Ahmad who was accused under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with dishonoured cheques issued dishonestly. The complainant alleged that Manzoor had borrowed over 34 lakh rupees and issued a cheque as repayment, but the cheque bounced when presented at the bank. Manzoor was arrested and had been in custody since February 2013. He sought post-arrest bail, arguing that the cheque was actually issued as a guarantee for business dealings rather than for a loan, and that it had been misused. His lawyer also pointed out that the offence did not fall under the category of crimes where bail is normally restricted, and that he was no longer needed for further investigation.
The state opposed bail, arguing that the issuance and dishonouring of the cheque were not disputed, the offence was complete, and the amount involved was too large to justify leniency.
The Lahore High Court agreed that the amount was somewhat excessive but noted that this alone did not matter, since the offence did not fall within the restricted category of crimes under the bail law. Since the petitioner was no longer needed for investigation, keeping him in jail indefinitely would serve no purpose. The court granted bail, requiring him to furnish bonds and a surety. This case matters because it confirms that a large cheque amount does not automatically disqualify someone from bail in dishonoured cheque cases.
یہ مقدمہ منظور احمد نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جس پر پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت الزام عائد کیا گیا تھا، جو بددیانتی سے جاری کیے گئے اور نقد نہ ہونے والے (باؤنس شدہ) چیکوں سے متعلق ہے۔ مدعی کا الزام تھا کہ منظور نے 34 لاکھ روپے سے زائد رقم قرض کے طور پر لی تھی اور اس کی واپسی کے لیے ایک چیک جاری کیا تھا، لیکن جب یہ چیک بینک میں پیش کیا گیا تو وہ نقد نہ ہو سکا۔ منظور کو گرفتار کر لیا گیا تھا اور وہ فروری 2013 سے زیرِ حراست تھا۔ اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کی درخواست دائر کی، اور موقف اختیار کیا کہ چیک دراصل قرض کی ادائیگی کے لیے نہیں بلکہ کاروباری معاملات میں بطور ضمانت جاری کیا گیا تھا، اور اس کا ناجائز استعمال کیا گیا۔ اس کے وکیل نے یہ بھی نشاندہی کی کہ یہ جرم ان جرائم کی فہرست میں شامل نہیں جن میں عام طور پر ضمانت پر پابندی ہوتی ہے، اور یہ کہ ملزم کو مزید تفتیش کے لیے درکار نہیں تھا۔
ریاست نے ضمانت کی مخالفت ک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 672
Present: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.
MANZOOR AHMAD--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6810-B of 2013, decided on 19.6.2013.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--No doubt the volume of amount was some what excessive but fact remains that alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Petitioner was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation, therefore, by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period, the prosecution will not get any benefit--Bail admitted. [P. 673] A
2011 SCMR 1708, PLJ 2012 Crl. Cases (Lahore) 894, ref.
Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. M. Akhlaq, D.P.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 19.6.2013.
Order
The petitioner Manzoor Ahmad seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 128 dated 07.02.2013 u/S. 489-F, PPC registered at P.S South Cantt, Lahore, on the complaint of Muhammad Hamid Ghauri on the allegation that the petitioner borrowed Rs.34,56,000/- from the complainant and for its payment, he issued a cheque, when it was presented for its drawing, the same was dishonoured; hence the case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact between the parties, there are business transactions and the petitioner never obtained any amount as loan from the complainant; the Cheque was issued for a guarantee and the same has been misused; the petitioner is behind the bars since 21.2.2013, no more required for further investigation and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned D.P.G by opposing the submissions contended that issuance of cheque has not been denied and its dishonouring has also been prima facie proved on the record, therefore, the offence has been completed and the amount is some what huge, therefore, at this early stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. No doubt the volume of amount is some what excessive but fact remains that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 21.2.2013 and no more required for further investigation, therefore, by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period, the prosecution will not get any benefit. Having sought guidance from the case of Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar etc reported in 2011 SCMR 1708 and PLJ 2012 Crl. Cases, Lahore 894, the instant application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.S.) Bail admitted