Skip to main content

While granting pre-arrest bail, merits of case can be touched upon by Court and question of further inquiry can also be stretched at this stage

By

 PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 119

[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.

MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ--Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 42260-B of 2025, decided on 17.9.2025.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Pre-arrest, bail, grant of--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--Trial Court after recording of evidence--Petitioner has paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to complainant during proceeding in pending petition before lower Court which fact squarely makes his case that of further inquiry and question of further inquiry can be looked into even at pre-arrest bail stage--Granted pre-arrest bail to accused therein not only on grounds of mala fide, ulterior motives and abuse of process of law, but also on ground of further inquiry--While granting pre-arrest bail, merits of case can be touched upon by Court and question of further inquiry can also be stretched at this stage as well--Apparently petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.        [Para 6] A, B & C

PLD 2024 SC 1241; 2024 SCMR 14; 2024 SCMR 1605; 2024 SCMR 805; 2023 SCMR 2081 and 2023 SCMR 884.

Mr. Ali Abbas Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Waqas Anwar, DPG for State.

Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 17.9.2025.

Order

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 456 dated 04.04.2025 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at police station Kotwali District Faisalabad.

2.       Petitioner was under the allegation that he issued one cheque valuing Rs. 50,00,000/-, whereas, the other of Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the complainant which stood dishonoured on presentation before the concerned Bank.

3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an agreement between the complainant and petitioner was executed on 25.03.2022, whereas, petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- as guarantee but during the process an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was allegedly outstanding against the petitioner but as a matter of course and by the interference of lower Court, he has paid Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash to the petitioner and has already paid rest of the amount but his guarantee cheque was misused by the complainant for registration of FIR.

4.       Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has confirmed this fact but states that police has found him guilty. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition on the ground that whole amount is still outstanding against the petitioner and complainant does not own the agreement as alleged by the petitioner.

5.       Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.       The facts highlighted by learned counsel for the complainant would well be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. At present, the petitioner has paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant during the proceeding in pending petition before the lower Court which fact squarely makes his case that of further inquiry and question of further inquiry can be looked into even at pre-arrest bail stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Saeed Ahmed and another versus The State” (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 1241), “Salman Mushtaq and others versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another” (2024 SCMR 14), “Khizar Hayat versus The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1605) and “Mir Muhammad versus The State through Prosecutor General Sindh” (2024 SCMR 805) granted pre-arrest bail to the accused therein not only on the grounds of mala fide, ulterior motives and abuse of process of law, but also on the ground of further inquiry. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Abdul Rehman versus The State and others” (2023 SCMR 2081) and “Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan versus The State and others” (2023 SCMR 884) that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court and question of further inquiry can also be stretched at this stage as well. In the circumstances, apparently petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

7.       In the light of above circumstances, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Petition 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