Refusal of Bail in 489-F is an exception
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Sajjad Haider who was accused of issuing a dishonoured cheque worth Rs. 300,000 to a complainant, an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. He was arrested and sought bail from the Lahore High Court after his arrest, known as post-arrest bail.
The prosecution argued that he had defrauded the complainant of a large sum and that he had previously been named in two other similar cheque-dishonour cases, so he should not get bail. The defence argued that the cheque was issued only as security for a business arrangement, that there was a 13-day delay in filing the police complaint, and that he had no prior convictions.
The court noted that offences under Section 489-F do not fall within the "prohibitory clause" of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a legal category of serious offences where bail is normally refused. For offences outside this category, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Since the petitioner had never actually been convicted in his earlier cases, mere involvement in similar cases wasn't enough to deny him bail. The court also noted he could not be kept in jail indefinitely while his trial remained unfinished. Bail was therefore granted. This case reinforces the principle that for less serious offences, courts should favour granting bail unless exceptional circumstances justify refusal.
اس مقدمے کا تعلق سجاد حیدر نامی ایک شخص سے ہے جس پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے ایک شکایت کنندہ کو تین لاکھ روپے مالیت کا ایک ایسا چیک جاری کیا جو بعد میں بینک سے وصول نہ ہو سکا، جو کہ تعزیراتِ پاکستان کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت جرم ہے۔ گرفتاری کے بعد اس نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے ضمانت کی درخواست کی، جسے ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری کہا جاتا ہے۔
استغاثہ کا موقف تھا کہ ملزم نے شکایت کنندہ کو ایک بڑی رقم سے دھوکہ دیا ہے اور اس کے خلاف پہلے سے چیک کی عدم ادائیگی کے دو مزید ایسے ہی مقدمات درج ہیں، اس لیے اسے ضمانت نہیں دی جانی چاہیے۔ دوسری طرف دفاع کا کہنا تھا کہ یہ چیک محض ایک کاروباری معاہدے کی ضمانت کے طور پر جاری کیا گیا تھا، پولیس میں شکایت درج کرانے میں تیرہ دن کی تاخیر ہوئی تھی، اور ملزم کا کوئی سابقہ سزا یافتہ ریکارڈ نہیں تھا۔
عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ دفعہ 489-F کے تحت آنے والے جرائم ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 497 ک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 769
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, J.
SAJJAD HAIDER--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 4327-B of 2013, decided on 22.4.2013.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--Offences u/S. 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S-497, Cr.P.C.--In such like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception--Exceptions mentioned in the said judgment are not available in the present case as petitioner was previously non-convict--His involvement in two other cases of same nature without any conviction is not sufficient to disentitle him from the concession of bail--Petitioner was behind the bars but his trial has not yet been concluded--He cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period in an offence, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Bail accepted. [P. 771] A
PLD 1995 SC 34.
Bail--
----Where the case falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the concession of granting bail is to be favourably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases. [P. 771] B
2011 SCMR 1708 & 2009 SCMR 1488, ref.
Shahzada Muhammad Zeeshan Mirza, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Akram Tahir, DDPP for State.
Ms. Naila Riaz Chaudhry, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 22.4.2013.
Order
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Sajjad Haider seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 292-12 dated 15.11.2012 under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station Baigowala District Sialkot.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR is that petitioner issued a cheque valuing Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant but the same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had some business terms with the complainant and in lieu of that he had issued the cheque as security; that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition while arguing that the petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount, hence, he is not entitle for the concession of bail. Learned DDPP after going through the record states that petitioner was earlier involved in two criminal cases under Section 489-F, PPC but concedes that he has not been convicted in those cases.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. According to the stance of the petitioner he issued the cheque as a guarantee/security, whereas, the claim of the complainant is that petitioner had issued the cheque in order to fulfill his obligation. This controversy would be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. The offence under Section 489-F, PPC is punishable with three years RI or with fine, meaning thereby that alternative sentence of fi