2004 PLP 2227 (YLR)

5. Through said Ordinance further amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Schedule II after entries relating to section 489‑F was made as follows:‑‑ 1 2 3 4 489‑F Dishonestly issuing a cheque for repayment of loan etc. Ditto Ditto 5 6 7 8 Ditto Compoundable Imprisonment of the either description for three years or with fine or with both Magistrate of the first class

6. The above perusal of the amendment shows that newly added offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with fine or with both, makes the said offence, as bailable. Same is clear from the amendment in Schedule II, Act V of 1898 in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, it may be pointed out that newly‑added section has been shown in one copy of the Major Act, as bailable ‑and in another as non bailable offence. In order to resolve this controversy, I would like to refer to the salutary principle for the interpretation of Penal Law, as is evident from "Maxwell on the interpretation of Statutes" which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "The principle applied in construing a Penal Act is that if, in construing the relevant provisions, there appears any reasonable doubt or ambiguity, it will be resolved in favour of the petitioner who would be liable to penalty."

7. The sentence provided for the newly added offence is three years or with fine or with both. Keeping in view that offence is also punishable with fine or both. I am of the view that offence is bailable and this interpretation is also applicable to the 13 person, who is liable to the penalty. Clause analysis all the provisions of Penal Codes also reveals that where punishment is in the form of three years or both offence had been made bailable. Offence against other Laws punishable ' with imprisonment not exceeding three years or with fine or with both can safely be held to be bailable unless specifically declared and made as non- bailable by the Legislature in the aforesaid Schedule II. Keeping in view principle for the interpretation of statutes as well as offence in question is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years or with fine or with both, I am persuaded to hold chat offence under section 489‑F is bailable offence, therefore, respondents Nos. l and 2 were entitled to be admitted to bail as of right. It may also be pointed that the considerations for the grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are altogether different. Once ‑the bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation thereof. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional circumstance sufficient for the cancellation of bail already granted to respondents Nos. 1 and

2. The civil suit 'was filed by respondent No. l against son of the complainant with regard to validity of cheques in dispute on 5‑7‑2003 while instant case was registered on 16‑7‑2003, which itself depicts mala fide and. ulterior motive on part of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality or perversity of reasoning committed by the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming bail before arrest of respondents Nos.1 and

2. No useful purpose is likely to be served if bail of the accused is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest they should be allowed bail on the ground that case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 are punishable ‑only to the extent of three years or with fine or with both. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not required for further investigation. In this view of the matter, bail granting order does not warrants interference by this Court.

8. This petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed being devoid of any force. H.B.T./M‑56/L Petition dismissed.