2025 PLP 1634 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The instant petition under section 497, Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner/accused above named against the impugned order dated 15-03-2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge District Gilgit in Bail Application No. 141/2025 whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge Gilgit has dismissed the post-arrest bail application of the present petitioner/accused.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order dated 15-03-2025 the present petitioner/ accused has called in question the same before this court through the instant petition. The petitioner/ accused through the instant petition seeks his enlargement on bail.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused namely Sadadm Hussain issued a Cheque bearing No. 38915197 of Khyber Bank Ltd. Jutial Branch amounting to Rs. 1850000 (Eighteen lacs and fifty thousand only) to the complainant and the same was dishonored presentation before concerned Bank due to insufficient balance. Resultantly an FIR bearing No. 179/2024 was lodged against the present petitioner /accused on written complaint of the complainant.

4. After registration of the FIR the concerned SHO started investigation and arrested the petitioner/accused and after completion of formal investigation the SHO got committed the present petitioner/ accused to judicial lockup. The present petitioner/accused approached the court of learned District and Sessions Judge District Gilgit for grant of post -arrest bail, which was declined by the learned District and Sessions Judge District Gilgit vide order dated 15-03-2025, hence, this petition before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused argued that the learned District and Sessions Judge Gilgit has erroneously dismissed the post-arrest bail application of the petitioner/ accused without any cogent reason as the petitioner/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case by the complainant with mala fide intention and the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused are baseless, therefore, the bail dismissal order dated 15-03-2025 of the learned District and Sessions Judge Gilgit is injudicious, based on conjectures, misconception, misinterpretation and devoid of any legal force, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the petitioner/accused has issued a company cheque. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that notice under section 30 of negotiable instrument Act has not been issued prior to the lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that above mentioned section does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the no any agreement is available on record regarding transaction of vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that petitioner/accused is behind the bars since his arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that there is no business transaction between petitioner/ accused and complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly submitted that the case of the petitioner/accused requires further inquiry therefore, the petitioner/accused may be admitted to post arrest bail in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied on judgments of superior Courts reported as PLJ 2024 SC Note 24.

6. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and argued that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the FIR and the section 489-F, P.P.C fully attracts to the instant case, therefore, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for facility of post-arrest bail. The learned Deputy AG, and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge Gilgit has rightly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused on merit after hearing both the parties. The learned Deputy AG, and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner /accused has malafidly issued cheque to the complainant despite having knowledge that there was no sufficient amount in his bank account, and the offence is non-bailable. The learned Deputy AG, and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that petitioner/accused is habitual offender and he is involved in 06 other similar nature cases. The learned Deputy AG, and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the concerned Bank has issued a memo. regarding insufficient fund in the account of petitioner/accused and the Bank has dishonored the cheque. The learned Deputy AG, and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that an agreement between the parties regarding transition of vehicle is available, therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed to meet the ends of justice. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant have relied on judgments of superior Courts reported as 2025 YLR 147.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the available record of the case with their able assistance.

8. From perusal of record it appears that the present petitioner/accused is directly charged in the FIR with specific role of issuing cheque to the complainant which on presentation before the concerned Bank declared bounced being insufficient amount in his account. No possibility of the fake implication of the accused/petitioner or substitution exists because he was known to the complainant and transaction of vehicle between the parties is admitted. Although offence under section 489-F, P.P.C no doubt does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, but it is not universal rule of law that in each and every case which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years imprisonment bail must be granted to the accused without considering the gravity of the offence. Besides involvement of the petitioner/accused in this case the petitioner/accused has issued five more cheques to the different persons which on presentation before the concerned Banks declared bounced due to insufficient balance/amount in the account of the present petitioner/accused. Accordingly five more cases under section 489-F P.P.C have been registered against the present petitioner/accused vide FIR Nos.76/2024, 197/2024, 79/2024, 179/2024 and 180/2024 at Police Stations City Gilgit and Jutial Gilgit.

9. Accused/petitioner though is not convicted in any above mentioned cases previously, but involvement of the petitioner/accused in five more cases of similar nature is sufficient to be declared him habitual offender and apprehension is existed that if he is released on bail he could repeat the offence and there also exists apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail. The petitioner/accused has deceived and deprived six persons/complainant from their huge amount, as such the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused mainly contended that no any valid agreement is available on record regarding transaction of vehicle between the parties. In response to aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner the learned counsel for the complainant and learned DAG presented/produced a copy of an agreement exhibited between the parties, whereby the complainant has sold out a Premo car bearing Engine No. 2 ZR-FE 1797 CC Chassis No. ZRT260- 3017297, Model 2007 to the accused/petitioner, hence, the complainant has established transaction of vehicle.

11. For the foregoing reasons the petitioner/accused has not been able to make out the case for grant of post arrest bail in his favour. Hence, this bail petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. File. JK/9/GB Petition dismissed.