High Court allowed bail on 5 lakh pounds cheque .
 |
| High Court allowed bail on 5 lakh pounds cheque . |
**کیس کا خلاصہ:**
**مقدمہ نمبر:** Crl. متفرق نمبر 41311-B/2022
**مشتمل فریق:** راؤ غلام مصطفیٰ (درخواست گزار) بمقابلہ ریاست اور ایک اور
**عدالت:** لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور
**جج:** علی ضیا باجوہ
**آڈر کی تاریخ:** 14.09.2022
**پس منظر:**
درخواست گزار، راؤ غلام مصطفی، پاکستان پینل کوڈ، 1860 کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت درج ایف آئی آر کے لیے بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی درخواست کی۔ مقدمہ ایک مبینہ ڈس أنر شدہ چیک سے متعلق ہے، جسے 5 لاکھ پاؤنڈ کی رقم کی ادائیگی کے لیے جاری کیا گیا تھا۔ درخواست گزار کی بہن ڈاکٹر اختر الاسلام سے وصول کی گئی، جائیداد کی خریداری کے لیے۔
**اہم مشاہدات:**
1. **رپورٹنگ میں تاخیر:** واقعہ 12.07.2021 کو پیش آیا، لیکن ایف آئی آر 15.09.2021 کو درج کی گئی۔ اس تاخیر سے شکایت کے بروقت ہونے پر سوالات اٹھتے ہیں۔
2. **براہ راست ثبوت کی عدم موجودگی:** شکایت کنندہ، شاکر محمود، جو ڈاکٹر اختر الاسلام کے خصوصی وکیل ہیں، نے درخواست گزار کو براہ راست رقم ادا نہیں کی۔ ڈاکٹر اختر الاسلام نے تفتیش میں حصہ نہیں لیا اور نہ ہی دفعہ 161 Cr.P.C کے تحت کوئی بیان دیا۔
3. **قانونی سیاق و سباق:** دفعہ 489-F PPC کے تحت، زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا تین سال قید یا جرمانہ، یا دونوں ہیں۔ یہ دفعہ 497 Cr.P.C. کے دوسرے زمرے کے تحت ایک ناقابل ضمانت جرم ہے، جہاں عام طور پر ضمانت دی جاتی ہے جب تک کہ غیر معمولی حالات موجود نہ ہوں۔
4. **سول ریمڈی:** شکایت کنندہ نے رقم کی وصولی کے لیے آرڈر XXXVII CPC کے تحت دیوانی مقدمہ بھی دائر کیا ہے۔ جاری دیوانی قانونی چارہ جوئی کی موجودگی ضمانت کو روکتی نہیں ہے۔
**ترتیب:**
عدالت نے درخواست گزار کی بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت منظور کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا سخت نہیں ہے، درخواست گزار غیر مجرم ہے، اور مسلسل نظر بندی سے مزید تفتیش کا کوئی مقصد پورا نہیں ہوتا۔ درخواست گزار سے روپے کے ضمانتی مچلکے جمع کرانے کی ضرورت ہے۔ 5,00,000/- اسی رقم کی ایک ضمانت کے ساتھ ٹرائل کورٹ کے اطمینان کے لیے۔ کیے گئے مشاہدات عارضی ہیں اور کیس کے میرٹ کو متاثر نہیں کریں گے۔
**مضمرات:**
عدالت کا فیصلہ اس اصول کی عکاسی کرتا ہے کہ کم سزاؤں کے ساتھ غیر ضمانتی جرائم کے معاملات میں ضمانت عام طور پر دی جاتی ہے جب تک کہ اسے مسترد کرنے کے لیے ٹھوس وجوہات فراہم نہ کی جائیں۔ اس بات کو یقینی بنانے پر توجہ مرکوز رکھی گئی ہے کہ درخواست گزار کی حراست مقدمے کی سماعت سے پہلے تعزیری اقدام کے طور پر کام نہ کرے۔
**اضافی نوٹ:**
اس خلاصے کا مقصد عدالت کے فیصلے اور استدلال کا اجمالی جائزہ فراہم کرنا ہے۔ تفصیلی کارروائی اور سیاق و سباق کا جامع تفہیم کے لیے مزید جائزہ لیا جا سکتا ہے۔
**Case Summary:**
**Case Number:** Crl. Misc. No. 41311-B/2022
**Parties Involved:** Rao Ghulam Mustafa (Petitioner) vs. The State and another
**Court:** Lahore High Court, Lahore
**Judge:** Ali Zia Bajwa
**Date of Order:** 14.09.2022
**Background:**
The petitioner, Rao Ghulam Mustafa, is seeking post-arrest bail for an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The case concerns an alleged dishonored cheque, which was issued as repayment for an amount of 5 lac pounds, received from the petitioner’s sister, Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam, intended for property purchase.
**Key Observations:**
1. **Delay in Reporting:** The incident occurred on 12.07.2021, but the FIR was filed on 15.09.2021. This delay raises questions regarding the timeliness of the complaint.
2. **Absence of Direct Evidence:** The complainant, Shakir Mahmood, who is a special attorney for Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam, did not directly pay the amount to the petitioner. Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam did not join the investigation nor provide a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. **Legal Context:** Under Section 489-F PPC, the maximum punishment is three years imprisonment or a fine, or both. This is a non-bailable offense under the second category of Section 497 Cr.P.C., where bail is generally granted unless exceptional circumstances are present.
4. **Civil Remedy:** The complainant has also filed a civil suit under Order XXXVII CPC for the recovery of the amount. The presence of ongoing civil litigation does not preclude bail.
**Order:**
The court granted the petitioner post-arrest bail, noting that the maximum punishment is not severe, the petitioner is a non-convict, and no further investigative purpose is served by continued detention. The petitioner is required to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The observations made are tentative and will not affect the merits of the case.
**Implications:**
The court’s decision reflects the principle that in cases of non-bailable offenses with lesser punishments, bail is generally granted unless substantial reasons are provided to deny it. The focus remains on ensuring that the petitioner’s detention does not serve as a punitive measure before trial.
**Additional Note:**
This summary is intended to provide a concise overview of the court’s decision and rationale. The detailed proceedings and context can be reviewed further for comprehensive understanding.
FORM No. HCJD/C-121.
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. Crl. Misc. No. 41311-B/2022
Rao Ghulam Mustafa Versus The State and another
S.No.of order/
Proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties of counsel, where necessary.
14.09.2022 Syed Farhad Ali Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Hafiz Asghar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General with Rana Mehtab
SI along with the record.
Mr. Shahzad Saleem, Advocate along with the complainant.
Through this petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), Rao Ghulam Mustafa
(„petitioner’) seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.760/2021,
dated 15.09.2021, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860 („PPC‟) with Police Station Defence-B, District
Lahore.
2.
Precisely the allegation against the petitioner, as per the
contents of the crime report, is that he along with his brother
received an amount of 5 lac pounds from his sister Dr. Akhtar-ulIslam for the purchase of property in her name but the same was
not purchased. When the special attorney of Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam
demanded back the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque of
5 lac pounds of foreign currency account, which was dishonoured
on its presentation for encashment before the concerned bank.
3.
Heard arguments. Perused police file and material available
on the record.
4.
It has been straightaway noticed by this Court that the
occurrence, in this case, took place on 12.07.2021, whereas the
crime report was registered on 15.09.2021. The petitioner issued
the cheque in question to the complainant Shakir Mahmood from
whom he did not receive any amount rather the complainant is a
Crl. Misc.41311-B/2022
2
special attorney of Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam, sister of the petitioner,
who allegedly paid the amount to the petitioner. It is pertinent to
observe here that said Dr. Akhtar-ul-Islam neither joined the
investigation nor her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is
available on the record to substantiate the allegation leveled
against the petitioner. No exact dates and time span has been
mentioned in the crime report during which the alleged amount
was handed over or transferred to the petitioner through bank
transactions. Moreover, copy of the special power of attorney,
available on the record, nowhere reflects the purpose of sending
money to the petitioner as alleged by the complainant/special
attorney in the crime report.
5.
Admittedly, the punishment provided for the offence
under Section 489-F PPC is imprisonment for three years or fine
or both. Section 489-F PPC has been reproduced hereinafter for
better understanding: -
489-F – Dishonestly issuing a cheque
Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of
a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured
on presentation, shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to three years or with fine, or with
both, unless he 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.
The word „or‟ is normally disjunctive and „and‟ is normally
conjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect
to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the
context.1
The aforesaid three types of punishments provided under
Section 489-F PPC are in alternative to each other as the
expression „or‟ has been used therein. The insertion of word „or‟
by the legislature in Section 489-F PPC, reflects its intention that a
sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory, and it has been left to
the discretion of the court, as only a sentence of fine can also be
1
Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edition 2010, by Justice G.P. Singh at pages 477 and 478 & SUO MOTU
CASE NO.8 OF 2018 AND CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.649-L OF 2018 – PLD 2019 SC 201
Crl. Misc.41311-B/2022
3
imposed. The use of word „or‟ clearly reflects that a disjunctive
punishment of fine has also been provided in the Section ibid. The
use of word „or‟ signifies a disjunctive sense and it cannot be read
as „and‟, unless of course, the context provides so. The word “Or”
in PPC, while detailing punishments, should be taken as
„disjunctive‟ corresponding to the word “either” and legally
cannot be taken as interchangeable to word “and”. The use of
word “OR” legally speaks about choosing one out of two or
more options which (act of choosing) shall be “legal”.2
6.
The maximum punishment of offence provided under
Section 489-F PPC is not more than imprisonment for three years
or fine or both, as such, the same is not covered by the prohibition
contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In view of the
dictum laid down in Tariq Bashir & 5 others vs. The State – PLD
1995 SC 34, in non-bailable offences falling in the second
category i.e. punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years,
the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. No exceptional
circumstances could be pointed out by the learned prosecutor as
well as the learned counsel for the complainant, as enumerated in
Tariq Bashir supra. Further wisdom can be extracted from the
cases titled MUHAMMAD TANVEER vs. THE STATE – PLD 2017
Supreme Court 733 and ABDUL SABOOR vs. THE STATE
through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another – 2022 SCMR
592.
7.
In Abdul Saboor supra, the prestigious Supreme Court of
Pakistan held that for recovery of amount, civil proceedings
provide remedies under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟). Civil litigation between the parties is
also pending as the complainant/special attorney has also filed a
suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC for the recovery of the
amount mentioned in the disputed cheque. Involvement of a huge
amount does not enlarge the punitive scope of Section 489-F PPC
and is no ground for refusal of bail. Reliance in this regard can be
Crl. Misc.41311-B/2022
4
placed on Jahanzeb Khan3 wherein it was observed by the revered
Supreme Court of Pakistan as infra: -
“Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence
complained is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine
or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar.
Petitioner's continuous detention is not likely to improve upon
investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held
behind the bars as a strategy for punishment.”
8.
The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest
and his person is no more required to the investigating agency for
the purpose of further investigation. He is a previous non-convict
having no criminal antecedents. No useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite
period.
9.
Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the
petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five hundred
thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. It goes without saying that the
observations made herein above are tentative in nature, which
shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court
would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence
adduced at the trial.
(Ali Zia Bajwa)
Judge
Approved for Reporting
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment