Nine Months Delay in FIR : Bail Granted
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case is about a bail application in a cheque-dishonour case from Muzaffargarh, Punjab. The petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, was accused under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with issuing a cheque that bounces due to dishonest intentions. The complainant alleged that Nawaz issued a cheque for Rs. 700,000 that was dishonoured when presented to the bank. Nawaz had been arrested and was in custody, and he applied to the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) for post-arrest bail.
His lawyer argued that the cheque was given only as a business guarantee, that the FIR (police complaint) was filed nine months after the cheque was dishonoured without any explanation for the delay, that the maximum punishment for this offence is three years, and that police no longer needed him for investigation.
The court agreed with these arguments. It noted that the offence did not fall under the "prohibitory clause" of the bail law (which restricts bail for more serious crimes), and that the long unexplained delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts. Relying on earlier Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the judge granted bail, requiring Nawaz to submit a bond of Rs. 50,000 with a surety.
This case illustrates how courts weigh delay in reporting a crime and the severity of potential punishment when deciding bail requests.
کیس کی تفصیل
یہ مقدمہ مظفرگڑھ، پنجاب سے تعلق رکھنے والے ایک چیک کی بے عزتی کے مقدمے میں ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے۔ درخواست گزار محمد نواز پر تعزیرات پاکستان کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت الزام عائد کیا گیا تھا، جو بددیانتی کی نیت سے ایسا چیک جاری کرنے سے متعلق ہے جو بعد میں بینک سے واپس ہو جائے۔ مدعی کا الزام تھا کہ نواز نے سات لاکھ روپے کا چیک جاری کیا تھا جو بینک میں پیش کیے جانے پر بے عزت ہو گیا۔ نواز کو گرفتار کر کے حوالات میں رکھا گیا تھا، اور اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کے لیے لاہور ہائی کورٹ (ملتان بینچ) میں درخواست دائر کی۔
ان کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ چیک محض کاروباری ضمانت کے طور پر دیا گیا تھا، کہ ایف آئی آر (پولیس رپورٹ) چیک کے بے عزت ہونے کے نو ماہ بعد درج کرائی گئی تھی اور اس تاخیر کی کوئی وضاحت نہیں دی گئی، کہ اس جرم کی زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا تین سال ہے، اور یہ کہ پولیس کو مزید تفتیش کے لیے ان کی ضرورت نہیں ر
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2015 Cr.C . ( Lahore ) 764 [ Multan Bench Multan ] Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal , J. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl . Misc. No. 6620-B of 2014, decided on 8.1.2015. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497-- Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of-- Dishonour of cheque --Petitioner was behind the bar--There was unexplained delay of 9 months in lodging the FIR--Maximum sentence u/S. 489-F, PPC was three years--Petitioner was no more required to Police for purpose of investigation--Case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C , in such like cases concession of granting bail must be favourably considered. [P. 765] A 2011 SCMR 1708 and PLD 2013 Lahore 173 rel. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Khan Chandia , Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Riaz Ahmed Saghla , Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Date of hearing: 8.1.2015. Order Through this Crl . Misc., petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 392/2014 dated 04.10.2014, registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Qureshi , District Muzaffargarh .
2. Brief facts of the cases, as per contents of the FIR, are that petitioner dishonestly issued a cheque Bearing No. 66790565 dated 28.01.2014 amounting to Rs. 700,000/- in favour of complainant which was dishonoured on its presentation to the concerned bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he is falsely involved in the instant case; that petitioner issued the disputed cheque to the complainant as a guarantee in business transaction; that FIR lodged after unexplained delay of 9 months; that offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause; that petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest; that petitioner is no more required to the Police for further investigation; that prosecution has badly failed to prove its case and also did not bring on record any material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and bail in such like cases is rule and refusal is an exception, as such, bail may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 submits that petitioner is nominated in the FIR; that cheque in question was also issued by the petitioner, as such, petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is behind the bar since 10.10.2014. There is unexplained delay of 9 months in lodging the FIR. The maximum sentence u/S. 489-F, PPC is three years. Petitioner is no more required to the Police for the purpose of investigation. The case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C ., in such like cases concession of granting bail must be favourably considered. Reliance is place on the cases reported as Riaz Jafar Natiq vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) and Abdul Sattar vs. The State and Another (PLD 2013 Lahore 173) .
7. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court (A.S.) Bail accepted