PLJ 2026 SC (Cr.C.) 171
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ.
MUHAMMAD SAJID--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. P. No. 2066 of 2025, decided on 22.1.2026.
(On appeal against the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2013-B of 2025)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--No prohibitory clause--Post-arrest bail--Grant of--Cheque amounting to Rs. 15,500,000/- issued to the complainant--The offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail in such like cases in a rule while refusal is an exception--Petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. [Pp. 172 & 173] A, B & C
1991 SCMR 322; 2009 SCMR 299; 2011 SCMR 222; 2012 SCMR 573; 1997 SCMR 412; 2009 SCMR 1488; PLD 2017 SC 733; 2022 SCMR 592
Ms. Abida Farooq ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah AOR for Petitioner.
Ms. Chand Bibib, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Complainant in person.
Date of hearing: 22.1.2026.
Order
Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.--Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 08.12.2025, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2013-B of 2025, passed by the learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad with the prayer to set-aside the said order and grant post arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 818/2023, dated 15.09.2023, under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at police station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. Ms. Abida Farooq, Advocate High Court seeks permission to appear and argue the case on behalf of the petitioner. The request is allowed. One time permission is granted.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As per contents of the FIR, the cheque amounting to
Rs. 15,500,000/-, issued by the petitioner to the complainant was dishonoured on its presentation by the concerned bank, hence the FIR of this case.
5. The entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence (dishonoured cheque and bank slip), which is already in possession of the prosecution and as such there is no chance of tampering with the same. Nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, in such circumstances no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The
offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule while refusal is an exception. Although it has been argued by learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the petitioner remained an absconder in this case and he is also involved in seven (07) other criminal cases but it is by now well settled that mere abscondance of an accused or his involvement in some other cases is no ground to refuse bail, if otherwise, he is entitled to the said relief, on merits. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of ‘The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan’ (1991 SCMR 322), ‘Mitho Pitafi v. The State’ (2009 SCMR 299), ‘Jamila Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others (2011 SCMR 222), ‘Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State’ (2012 SCMR 573) & ‘Muhammad Rafique v. The State” (1997 SCMR 412). Thus, keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), “Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another” (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733) and “Abdul Shakoor vs. The State through A.G. Khyber Paktunkhwa and another” (2022 SCMR 592), ordaining that where a case falls within non-prohibitory clause, the concession of granting bail must favorably be considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases and because no exceptional ground has been pointed out by learned Additional Prosecutor General to refuse bail to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the petitioner is Granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(rupees one million only) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
(K.Q.B.) Petition allowed
Comments
Post a Comment