The concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless Court feels satisfied with seriousness of accused person’s assertion

 PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 172

[Sindh High Court, Karachi]

Present: Amjad Ali Sahito, J.

Syed MUHAMMAD KHURRAM--Applicant

versus

STATE--Respondent

Crl. B. Appln. No. 418 of 2024, decided on 23.7.2024.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Pre-arrest bail, dismissal of--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--The concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless Court feels satisfied with seriousness of accused person’s assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on part of complainant party or local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of matter is found as no mala fide is made on part of complainant to believe that applicant/accused has been implicated in this case falsely--Bail dismissed.                                                                                        [Para 6] A

2019 SCMR 1129.

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

----S. 498--Pre-arrest bail--Extraordinary relief--That grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is a diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases, protection to innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of mill criminal case as it seriously hampers course of investigation.                                                                                        [Para 6] B

Mr. Jahangir Siddiqui, Advocate for Applicant.

M/s. Saathi M. Ishaque & S.K. Lodhi, Advocates for Complainant.

Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Addl. P.G. Sindh a/w SSP (Investigation) Ali Hassan, DSP Jahanzeb, I.O. Inspector Abdul Ghaffar & ASI Umar Sajjad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23.7.2024.

Order

Through this Bail Application. Applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 406/2023 for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC at PS Aram Bagh, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned X-Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 25.01.2024.

2.       The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.       Per learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that in fact both the cheques mentioned in the FIR were given as security, otherwise no offence has been committed by him; that the applicant has filed a Suit being Civil Suit No. 01/2024 for declaration, cancellation and permanent injection, which was decreed; that the applicant is no more required for further investigation. Lastly, he prays for confirmation of bail.

4.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Addl. P.G. have vehemently opposed for confirmation of bail. Per learned counsel for the complainant, the decree has been passed for other cheques but not against the cheques at serial 13 and 14; whereas, learned Addl. P.G. submits that the applicant has not denied from the issuance of cheques nor this signature and also relies upon Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act.

5.       From perusal of record, it reflects that the applicant is doing business of sale and purchase of the property and the complainant being his friend came to know that the applicant is going to purchase a banglow in Gulshan-e-Iqbal for which the complainant invested. But when he demanded for return of his amount, he made lame excuses and thereafter, he had given two cheques of Rs. 35 lacs and Rs. 45 lacs respectively but when the complainant presented these cheques, the same were found bounce due to insufficient balance. From the above conduct, it appears that the applicant has no intention to pay the said amount. Further, the applicant knowingly issued the cheques that he had no sufficient amount in his account, as such, he has committed the offence of cheating and fraud with the complainant. The applicant has also not denied issuance of his cheques as well as from his signature. The ingredients of Section 489-F, PPC are very much applicable in this case. Further, so far as learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 01/2024 is concerned, the cheques mentioned at Serial 13 & 14 were excluded being the instruments of the present FIR. At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made. No malafide or ill-will or enmity has been pleaded by the applicant/accused, which could be the ground for false implication in this case.

6.       Further, the concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the Court feels satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person’s assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter is found as no mala fide is made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant/accused has been implicated in this case falsely. In this context, the reliance is placed to the case of ‘Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others’ (2019 SCMR 1129]. In addition to the above, I would like to mention that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is a diversion of the usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases, protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of the investigation.

7.       In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed. Resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 19.02.2024 is hereby recalled.

8.       Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants/accused on merits.

(A.A.K.)          Bail dismissed