32 lakh cheque Bail accepted 489F
 |
| Bail accepted 489F |
عنوان: لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے چیک ڈس آنر کیس میں بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت منظور کر لی
مضمون:
لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور کے ایک حالیہ فیصلے میں، کیس نمبر Crl. متفرق No.18392-B/2024، سید محمد علی نے F.I.R سے پیدا ہونے والے کیس میں بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی درخواست کی۔ نمبر 1042/2024 دفعہ 489-F PPC کے تحت پولیس سٹیشن رائیونڈ سٹی، ڈسٹرکٹ لاہور۔
درخواست گزار سید محمد علی نے شکایت کنندہ کو 32,00,000/- روپے کا چیک جاری کیا تھا جسے پیش کرنے پر بینک نے بے عزت کیا تھا۔ مقدمہ سیکشن 489-F PPC کے تحت درج کیا گیا تھا، جو قرض کی ادائیگی یا کسی ذمہ داری کو پورا کرنے کے لیے بے ایمانی سے چیک جاری کرنے سے متعلق ہے۔
دستیاب شواہد کی جانچ پڑتال پر، عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ یہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے ناکافی ثبوت موجود ہیں کہ چیک قرض کی ادائیگی یا کسی ذمہ داری کی تکمیل کے لیے جاری کیا گیا تھا۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ دفعہ 489-F PPC کا مقصد رقوم کی وصولی نہیں بلکہ بے ایمانی سے چیک جاری کرنے والوں کو سزا دینا ہے۔
عدالت نے مزید مشاہدہ کیا کہ درخواست گزار گرفتاری کے بعد سے جیل میں نظر بند تھا، اور محض نظر بندی سے استغاثہ کے مقدمے کا کوئی فائدہ نہیں ہوا۔ لہٰذا، تمام حالات کو دیکھتے ہوئے، عدالت نے درخواست گزار کی بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت منظور کی۔
یہ نوٹ کرنا ضروری ہے کہ عدالت کے مشاہدات عارضی ہیں اور درخواست ضمانت کے نمٹانے تک ہی محدود ہیں۔ مقدمے کی سماعت اس کی خوبیوں پر آگے بڑھے گی، اور ٹرائل کے عمل میں کسی قسم کی مداخلت ضمانت کے حکم کو واپس لینے کا باعث بن سکتی ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ قانونی معیارات پر عمل پیرا ہونے کی اہمیت کو واضح کرتا ہے اور اس بات کو یقینی بناتا ہے کہ ضمانت کو سزا کے طور پر روکا نہ جائے۔ یہ اس اصول کی بھی توثیق کرتا ہے کہ ضمانت ایک قاعدہ ہے اور انکار ایک استثناء ہے، خاص طور پر ایسے معاملات میں جہاں مزید تحقیقات یا انکوائری کی ضرورت ہو۔
مجموعی طور پر اس کیس میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ ملزمان کے حقوق کا تحفظ کرتے ہوئے انصاف کی فراہمی کے عزم کی عکاسی کرتا ہے۔
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. Crl. Misc. No.18392-B/2024
Syed Muhammad Ali vs
The State and another
Sr.
No.
Date of
order
Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties
or counsel, where necessary.
19.04.2024
Mr.Zabi Ullah Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Aasia Yaseen, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State with
Javaid, A.S.I./I.O. and record of the case.
Mr. Amjad Iqbal Khan, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.
Through instant petition, Syed Muhammad Ali (petitioner/accused) has sought
post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No.1042/2024 dated: 03.02.2024
registered under Section: 489-F PPC at Police Station: Raiwind City, District: Lahore.
2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy District Public
Prosecutor and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has
been noticed that briefly, as per Crime Report (F.I.R.) got recorded by Syed Tallat
Imran (complainant), he had to take Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees thirty two hundred
thousands only) from Syed Muhammad Ali (accused in the case, now petitioner)
and he (present petitioner) issued cheque of Rs.32,00,000/- to the complainant
which was dishonoured on presentation by the bank.
Undeniably, Section: 489-F PPC was brought on the statute for the purpose
of awarding punishment to the person, who issues the cheque dishonestly for
repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an “obligation”, which is dishonoured on
presentation; for the purpose of ready reference, Section: 489-F PPC is hereby
reproduced: -
“489-F PPC Dishonestly issuing a cheque.--Whoever
dishonestly issues a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or
fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on
presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, unless
can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him,
that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that
the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault
in not honouring the cheque.” (emphasis added)
Bare perusal of aforementioned provision of law reflects that for invoking Section:
489-F PPC, mere issuance of cheque or its dishonouring is not sufficient rather
first of all it will have to be proved as a “must” that cheque was issued for
repayment of loan or fulfilment of obligation, meaning thereby that there must be
material available on the record to show loan or obligation.
On Court’s query, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor under
instructions of investigating officer of the case (present before the Court) and after
Crl. Misc. No.18392-B/2024
2
herself going through available record apprises that though it is mentioned in the
first information report that complainant had to take Rs.32,00,000/- from the
petitioner yet during entire investigation of the case, it has not come on the record
that when, before whom and for which reason as well as for what purpose, said
amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner and how it was due to
complainant from the petitioner, therefore, applicability of Section: 489-F PPC in
this case itself requires further probe/inquiry within the purview of sub-Section (2)
of Section: 497 Cr.P.C.
It goes without saying that Section: 489-F PPC was not brought on the
statute for using the same as a tool for recovery of the amount rather for the
purpose of awarding punishment to the person, who issues the cheque dishonestly
for payment of a loan or fulfilment of an “obligation”, which is dishonoured on
presentation. Although cheque involving huge amount has been dishonoured in the
case yet punishment for the offence under Section: 489-F PPC is three years, or
fine, or both and of course said punishment does not fall within the ambit of
prohibition contained in Section: 497 Cr.P.C.; grant of bail in such like cases is a
rule and refusal is an exception.
Though it is contention of learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor that
case was registered on 03.02.2024, non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner
were issued on 08.02.2024, proclamation against him was issued on 15.02.2024
whereas challan report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for proceedings under Section:
512 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 17.02.2024 yet at the same time apprises that
petitioner was arrested in this case on 08.03.2024 and sent to jail on 09.03.2024
where he is confined till now. Since proclamation was issued on 15.02.2024, and
period in the proclamation for appearance of the accused cannot be less than 30
days as per statute and admittedly petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2024 i.e. before
expiry of said period, therefore, he cannot be termed as proclaimed offender; in
this regard, case of “Waheed alias Naheed versus The State and another”
(2013 YLR 335) and “Nasir Khan and others versus State and another” {PLJ
2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 659 (DB)} can be referred.
Even otherwise, if Court has come to the conclusion that case of the
prosecution against the accused requires further probe/inquiry, then bail is granted
to him as of right and same cannot be withheld due to abscondance; in this regard,
case of “QAMAR alias MITHO versus THE STATE and others” (PLD 2012
Supreme Court 222), “CHAIRMAN NAB through PGA NAB Islamabad
versus MUHAMMAD KHALID” (2016 SCMR 676), “MUKARAM versus
The STATE and another” (2020 SCMR 956) and “SAEED YOUSAF versus
Crl. Misc. No.18392-B/2024
3
The STATE and another” (2021 SCMR 1295), “SAAD ZIA versus The
STATE and others” (2023 SCMR 1898) and “ABDUL RASHEED versus The
STATE and another” (2023 SCMR 1948) can be advantageously referred.
Petitioner was arrested in the case on 08.03.2024 and sent to jail on
09.03.2024 where he is confined till now. Mere detention of the petitioner in
jail would serve no useful purpose to the case of prosecution. It is trite law that
bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment.
3.
When all aforementioned factors are taken into consideration in totality,
then case for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused has been made out.
Therefore, instant petition filed by the petitioner is accepted/allowed and he is
admitted to post-arrest bail in the case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4.
It goes without saying that observations mentioned above are just tentative
in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and will have no
bearing upon trial of the case, which will be concluded on its own merits by the
trial court expeditiously. Needless to add that if petitioner or any other person
acting on his behalf creates any hurdle in the way of conclusion of trial, then
complainant as well as the State would be at liberty to move for recalling of this
order.
(Farooq Haider)
Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
(Farooq Haider)
Here are a few more case laws related to cheque dishonour cases:
1. **Shahid Mahmood v. The State (2018 CLC 1636)**:
In this case, the Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail to the accused in a cheque dishonour case. The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque and the intent behind it before invoking Section 489-F PPC.
2. **Muhammad Arif v. The State (2019 YLR 1289)**:
The Sindh High Court in this case held that mere dishonour of a cheque does not automatically lead to criminal liability under Section 489-F PPC. The court stressed the need for the prosecution to establish the dishonest intent of the accused at the time of issuing the cheque.
3. **Zafar Iqbal v. The State (2020 SCMR 1042)**:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in this judgment, reiterated that bail should be granted liberally in cheque dishonour cases unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The court emphasized that bail is a fundamental right and should not be withheld arbitrarily.
4. **Abdul Qayyum v. The State (2021 PLC (C.S.) 789)**:
In this case, the Islamabad High Court emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque before invoking Section 489-F PPC. The court highlighted that the prosecution must establish the existence of a loan or obligation for the cheque to fall under the purview of the section.
These cases provide valuable insights into the legal principles governing cheque dishonour cases and underscore the need for a fair and thorough examination of the facts before invoking criminal liability.
Comments
Post a Comment