2023 PLP 748 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 748 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 748 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 748 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 748 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Danyal Ijaz, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Lahore) for Petitioner.
- Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 12.11.2020 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52632-B of 2020)
Ss. 497(2) & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Admittedly, it was the accused himself who stopped the payment of the cheque on the ground that the cheque had been removed from his cheque book illegally/unauthorizedly
Further there was inordinate delay in registration of FIR, which had not been explained
As yet no proof had been tendered to show that the disputed amount was paid to the accused by the complainant
No evidence was available on record, at present stage, with regard to the stated ingredients of section 489-F, P.P.C., which may bring it within the ambit of mala fide on the part of the complainant
In such circumstances this also made it a case of further inquiry
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and Waheed Hassan, SI/IO (through video-link from Lahore) for the State. Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, J. The petitioner, namely, Bashir Ahmed seeks pre-arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No. 461/20 dated 21 August 2020 registered under section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code ('the Code') at Police Station Saddar, District Bhakkar in respect of a cheque dated 2 January 2018 payment whereof was stopped, on the instructions of the petitioner, by the Bank.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR; that no proof of loan or fulfillment of an obligation in terms of section 489F of the Code was tendered nor how the stated amount of two million and two hundred thousand rupees was paid to the petitioner which confirms the mala fide of the complainant and also makes it a case of further inquiry.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail petition and states in pre-arrest bail discretion at this stage cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner as no mala fide has been pointed out and that section 489F does not require proof of loan or fulfillment of an obligation to be disclosed at this stage.
4. Mr. Waheed Hassan, Sub-Inspector, who is the Investigation Officer ('IO') was asked if there is any other case against the petitioner of such kind and he stated that there is none and upon our further query, he stated that the matter pertains to a private dispute between the parties. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and the IO state that the State do not oppose the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner if the Court is inclined to grant it.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the documents and read section 489F of the Code. Admittedly, it was the petitioner himself who stopped the payment of the cheque on the ground that the cheque had been removed from his cheque book illegally/unauthorizedly. Then there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained, in registering the FIR. And, as yet no proof has been tendered to show that the amount of two million and two hundred thousand rupees was paid to the petitioner by the complainant. There is also no evidence, at this stage, with regard to the stated ingredients of section 489F of the Code, which may bring it within the ambit of mala fide on the part of the complainant. In the circumstances this also makes it a case of further inquiry. Therefore, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned order and admitting the appellant to pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of one hundred thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Needless to state any observation made hereinabove would not adversely affect the case of either party. MWA/B-1/SC Bail granted.