2020 PLP 2294 (YLR)

MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMAD, J.

Ahmar Altaf-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.484 dated 28.09.2019 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, B-Division District Okara.

2. In brief allegation against the present petitioner is that on 10.09.2017, the petitioner has borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- as loan to run Sweet Factory/confectionary and while admitting financial liability issued post-dated cheque for 21.01.2019 of aforesaid amount payable by UBL Branch, Okara, but when the cheque was presented to the bank, it was dishonoured.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. There is delay of eight months in lodging the FIR. The version of petitioner that the complainant has invested Rs.8,00,000/- in joint business and in that context, aforesaid cheque was issued as guarantee, will be appreciated by the learned trial court. The petitioner is behind the bars since 22.01.2020 and his person is no more needed for any valid purpose, whereas, conclusion of trial may take long time. Now it is settled principle of law that advance punishment is against the norms of criminal justice. As conceded by the learned Law Officer, there is no other criminal case of identical nature against the petitioner. Offence for which petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and as such it is a case of bail and not jail. In this regard, reliance is placed on cases Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708), Sikandar Zaman v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 870), Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488) and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34) and Mansha Khan v. The State (1977 SCMR 449). In Muhammad Tanveer's case, supra, following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are quite relevant:- "

6. We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases of this nature, not falling within the pro-hibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, particularly accused persons charged for such offences are unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions. This phenomenon is growing tremendously, thus, cannot be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court is wasted in disposal of such petitions. This Court is purely a constitutional Court to deal with intricate questions of law and Constitution and to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where law points require interpretation.

12. Today every prison is accommodating convicted and under-trial prisoners more than double of its capacity and allied facilities besides the State authorities are involved on daily basis in transporting such under-trial prisoners from the prisons to the Court premises on every date of hearing, involving risk and extra expenditures from the public exchequer while on the other hand the dependent family members, especially the school going children of the under-trial prisoners charged for such offences are left without proper care and supervision of the father or mother when their parents are sent to jail, therefore, their academic career is always at stake and they are tempted and persuaded to indulge in unsocial or anti-social activities ultimately landing them in the field of crimes, which is not good for the society at large.

13. Once this Court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then, the Courts of the country should follow this principle in its letter and spirit because principles of law enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts. " (emphasis supplied by me)

5. It is sorry state of affairs and is regretfully noted that above authoritative observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which are based on ground realities and under the Constitution are binding on all courts of country, (reference made to cases of Shahid Pervaiz v. Ijaz Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 206) and Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Asif and 3 others" (2018 PCr.LJ 823 Lahore)] are not being adhered to in letter and spirit and resultantly even for petty matters, large number of petitions in which cases do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. are being filed before this Court piling up the pendency of cases, thus deviating attention of court from other material work.

6. For what has been discussed above, the instant application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Judge.

7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made supra are just tentative in nature and will have no bearing/impact on merits of the case. SA/A-32/L Bail granted.