Skip to main content

Bail in case of Eleven Million Rupees Cheque

By

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 264

[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, C.J.

ZOBIA RAFIQUE--Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 24323-B of 2024, decided on 18.7.2024.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Dishonoured of cheque--Bail after arrest, grant of--As per allegation in FIR, complainant alleged that petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from complainant for two months; however, she failed to pay it back--The petitioner denied her signature on alleged cheque--The reason for dishonor of cheque is that drawer signature is different, and there are insufficient funds, which supports version of petitioner--The question of whether cheque has been issued dishonestly would be seen by learned trial Court--The petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2024--The case investigation is complete, and petitioner’s person is no longer required to conduct further investigation--Bail cannot be withheld as punishment in advance--The maximum sentence for commission of an offence punishable under Section 489-F, PPC is three years, and same does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Bail allowed. [Para 3] A & B

PLD 1995 SC 34.

Mian Izhar Ahmad, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, DPG for State.

Ms. Zunaira, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 18.7.2024.

Order

The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 199-2024, dated 16.03.2024, registered under Section 489-F, PPC, at Police Station, Rail Bazar, District Faisalabad.

2.       Arguments heard. Record perused.

3.       In the instant case, the complainant alleged that he has a long-standing relationship with the petitioner and her husband. They took a loan of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- based on a long-standing relationship in the presence of the witnesses for two months, and the petitioner issued a cheque dated 02.02.2024 in favour of the complainant. The alleged cheque was dishonored on its presentation on 14.03.2024, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 16.3.2024, with a delay of two days, for which the complainant has rendered no justifiable explanation. As per the allegation in the FIR, the complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from the complainant for two months; however, she failed to pay it back. The petitioner denied her signature on the alleged cheque. The reason for the dishonor of the cheque is that the drawer signature is different, and there are insufficient funds, which supports the version of the petitioner. The question of whether the cheque has been issued dishonestly would be seen by the learned trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2024. The case investigation is complete, and the petitioner’s person is no longer required to conduct further investigation--Bail cannot be withheld as punishment in advance. The maximum sentence for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 489-F, PPC is three years, and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In the case of “Tariq Bashir and five others v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34), it is held that a, grant of bail in such cases is a rule, and refusal thereof is an exception. The petitioner has been behind bars since 20.03.2024, and her further incarceration in jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.

4.       For the above reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed

Labels:
Location: Office No. F-16, 1st Floor, Afzal Center, near Family Courts, G-10/1 Courts, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co-sharer

By
Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more

Entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property

By
  PLJ 2026 SC 96 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:   Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. AYESHA TAYYAB--Petitioner versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT.DISTRICT SIALKOT, etc.--Respondents C.P. No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22.5.2025. (On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 406--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 561-A--Quashment of criminal proceedings and Quashment of FIR--Entrustment of property and dishonest   misappropriation   of   entrusted   property--“Qarz-e-Hasna”--Amount was handed over as a loan/trust--High Court observed that no offence under section 406 PPC was made out from contents of FIR and proceeded to quash same under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199--Contents of FIR determine whether a cogni...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prosecution should be afforded fair opportunity of trial

By
  PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 42 [Balochistan High Court, Quetta] Present:  Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ. Dr.  MUHAMMAD ARIF--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 3 others--Respondents Crl. Acq. A. No. 461 of 2019, decided on 21.12.2020. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 265-K, 249-A & 417(2)--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Exercise of powers--Appeal against acquittal--The object of exercise of powers is to prevent abuse of law available to learned trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A of Cr.P.C., however, in a case where sufficient, prima facie, evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttle process of justice--The primary consideration to be kept in view would be whether continuance of proceedings before could be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not--If on basis of facts admitted and a patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of proc...
Post a Comment
Read more