Supreme Court case law on 489F | bail before arrest granted on 20 lakh cheque

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik

Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi

Crl.PLA No.340/2024

[Against the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore

passed in Crl. Misc No. 82102/B of 2024)

Muhammad Anwar

…Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State & another

…Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Muhammad Amir Malik, AOR

along with petitioner

For the State

: Mr. Irfan Zia,

Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab

Abdul Sami, SDPO Sargodha

M. Sami Jan, I.O 

For the Complainant

: Mr. Shahid Tabassum, ASC.

Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 

Date of Hearing

: 03.06.2024.

JUDGMENT 

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through the present 

petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of 

Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29.01.2024, (Impugned Order)

whereby the pre-arrest bail has been declined to him in FIR 

No.1002 dated 17.10.2023 registered under Section 489-F PPC at 

the Police Station City Sargodha. 

2. 

According to the gist of the aforesaid FIR lodged by

Muhammad Pervaiz Ali Hassan (complainant), on 08.06.2023 the 

brother-in-law of the complainant purchased the property from the 

accused through the complainant. The complainant in this regard

Crl.P.L.A No. 340 of 2024

- 2 -

made a payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the petitioner in the 

presence of witnesses and in return, the petitioner/accused 

Muhammad Anwar issued a cheque bearing number 02559350 of 

his account before the witnesses in favour of the complainant. That 

on the petitioner's demand, the complainant also gave him 

Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to complete the 

transaction therefore the complainant demanded back his amount 

and compensation. On the specified date, complainant deposited 

the cheque in question in the account for its encashment but the 

same was dishonoured due to a dormant account. 

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case with mala fide 

intention and ulterior motives; that the petitioner sold the house to 

the brother-in-law of the complainant namely Attique and the 

cheque in question has been given as a guarantee and this fact has 

already been mentioned in the agreement; that the complainant 

has no nexus whatsoever with the petitioner; that the petitioner 

has already instituted a civil suit regarding the agreement in 

question before the civil court as he is the owner and in possession 

of the plot in question as per the said agreement and the 

complainant has registered a false and frivolous case against 

accused. 

4. The learned law officer assisted by the learned counsel 

for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by 

learned counsel for the petitioner. They contend that the petitioner

is specifically named in the FIR and he committed fraud with the 

complainant by issuing a cheque in question of his dormant 

account; that the petitioner attempted to deprive the complainant 

of a huge amount and issued a cheque dishonestly which was 

Crl.P.L.A No. 340 of 2024

- 3 -

dishonoured by the concerned bank; that during the investigation,

the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence and lastly 

learned counsel for the complainant for dismissal of the instant 

petition. 

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 

perused the material available on the record. 

6.

 The allegations outlined in FIR are that the 

complainant's brother-in-law purchased the property from the 

Petitioner on 08.06.2023 through complainant and complainant in 

this regard made the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the petitioner 

in the presence of witnesses and in return petitioner issued cheque 

no. 02559350 of his account before the witnesses in favour of the 

complainant. To fulfil the petitioner’s demand, the complainant 

also gave him Rs. 2,00,000/-. Eventually, the Petitioner failed to 

complete the transaction and complainant started to demand his 

amount along with compensation. 

7. 

Primarily, the agreement in question is executed 

between Petitioner and Muhammad Attique regarding the plot. The 

perusal of said agreement indicates that the cheque in question 

was issued as “Guarantee” from the petitioner to Muhammad 

Attique. The complainant has failed to produce any receipt issued 

by the petitioner while receiving cash amount of 2,00,000/-. The 

tentative assessment of the record shows that it is not toward the 

fulfillment of any obligation but rather it was given as security.

Prima facie, it does not attract the elements of section 489-F PPC. 

8. 

This Court has held in the case titled Mian Allah Ditta,1

that every transaction where a cheque is dishonoured may not 

constitute an offense. The foundational elements to constitute an 

 

1 Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCMR 51) 

Crl.P.L.A No. 340 of 2024

- 4 -

offense under this provision are the issuance of the cheque with

dishonest intent, the cheque should be towards repayment of loan

or fulfillment of an obligation, and lastly that the cheque is

dishonoured.

9. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Abdul Rasheed,2

has ruled as follows:

“Even otherwise, even if the complainant wants to recover

his money, Section 489-F of PPC is not a provision which

is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an

alleged amount. In view of the above, the question whether

the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or

fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section

489-F PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the

learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. The

maximum punishment provided under the statute for the

offence under Section 489-F PPC is three years and the

same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section

497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the

offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule

and refusal is an exception.”

10. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been

guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

1973. By now it is also well settled that it is better to err in

granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and

sentence can repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail;

This court in the case of Chairman NAB,3 has ruled as follows:

“To err in granting bail is better than to err in declining;

for the ultimate conviction and sentence of a guilty person

can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail,

but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an

innocent person on his acquittal for his unjustified

imprisonment during the trial.”

11. For the above reasons, this petition is converted into an

appeal and allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated

29.01.2024 is set aside. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject

to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (one lac) with

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

2 Abdul Rasheed v. The State, etc [2023 SCMR 1948]

3 [PLD 2022 SC 475]

Crl.P.L.A No. 340 of 2024

- 5 -

12. Before parting, it is reiterated that the observations 

made hereinabove are tentative in nature. The trial court is at 

liberty to independently adjudicate the case on its own merits, 

without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 

13. Above are the reasons of our short order of even date. 

Judge

Islamabad,

3rd June, 2024

APPROVED FOR REPORTING 

Judge

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.