2026 PLP 481 (MLD)

JOhar Ali, J.

Through this Criminal Miscellaneous application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of bail, granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide bail granting order dated 02-06-2025, passed in B.A. No.298/2025, in FIR No. 239/2024, registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C, at Police Station City Gilgit.

2. Brief facts of the case in hand as per contents of FIR narrated by the petitioner/complainant are that in consideration of purchasing of a vehicle from the petitioner/complainant, the respondent/accused had issued a cheque, bearing No.CA-66162715 amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- (Eleven Lac), of Soneri Bank Gilgit to the petitioner/complainant. On 25-03-2024, when the petitioner/complainant presented the said cheque in the concerned Soneri Bank, the same was dishonored due to insufficient of funds. Resultantly, on written application of the petitioner/complainant, the aforementioned FIR No.239/24 was registered against the respondent/accused, under Section 489-F, P.P.C, at Police Station City Gilgit, hence, the respondent/ accused was arrested.

3. The respondent/accused filed post-arrest bail petition (Criminal Misc. No.50/2025) before the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Gilgit which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 26-05-2025. Being aggrieved, the respondent/accused filed post arrest bail petition (B.A. No.298/2025) before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide the impugned judgment/order dated 02-06-2025. Being aggrieved from the same, the petitioner/complainant has filed the instant bail cancellation petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the respondent/accused malafidely and maliciously issued a dishonored cheque bearing No.CA-66162715, amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- (Eleven Lac Rupees) dated 14-03-2024, to the petitioner/complainant and the respondent/accused was bound to pay the said amount to the petitioner/complainant in respect of a vehicle transaction as per sale deed/agreement deed dated 24-01-2024. On presenting the said cheque to the concerned bank, the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner/complainant approached the respondent/accused multiple times regarding dishonor of cheque and the respondent/accused gave false assurances of payment by using delaying tactics. The learned counsel further argued that after exhausting all reasonable efforts, the petitioner/complainant was compelled to approach the SHO Police Station City Gilgit through written application coupled with the original cheque and return dishonor memo and on the basis of which the above captioned FIR No.239/2024 has been registered against the respondent/accused under Section 489-F P.P.C. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit has failed to appreciate that issuing a bogus cheque with knowledge of insufficiency of fund is a cognizable, non-bailable and serious offence falling within the ambit of moral turpitude and the trend of issuing such cheques is increasing day by day and allowing bail in such cases without appreciation of material facts encourages financial frauds. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit has passed the impugned judgment/order dated 02-06-2025 without applying judicious mind as the same is merely passed on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR and technical observations regarding cheque staleness and lack of vehicle transaction details in the FIR and entirely ignored the mens-rea, modus operandi and fraudulent conduct of the respondent/accused, hence, the impugned judgment/order is liable to be cancelled and bail granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit is required to be recalled and directions may kindly be issued for arrest of the respondent/accused. He further argued that the respondent/accused is not entitled for concession of bail as a matter of right, hence, bail facility granted by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit to the respondent/accused is liable to be recalled. He further submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and erroneously against the facts of the instant case, and where any bail order is patently illegal or erroneously, then bail facility shall be recalled, hence, bail facility granted to the respondent/accused is liable to be recalled. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has requested for acceptance of the instant bail cancellation petition by setting aside the bail order dated 02-06-2025 granted by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit in B.A. No.298/2025.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and contended that the alleged cheque is a stale cheque which has been presented after an unexplained delay of more than ten months. He further argued that FIR has been registered on 04-12-2024, but despite lapse of more than seven months, challan has not been submitted, and it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the respondent/accused issued the alleged dishonored cheque in fulfillment of financial obligation and details of the vehicle are also missing in the FIR. The learned counsel further submitted that no notice under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act issued to the respondent/accused and mandatory provisions of Section 173, Cr.P.C have been violated as trial of the case has yet not been commenced. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit has rightly granted bail facility to the respondent/accused as a matter of right, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the instant bail cancellation petition to meet the ends of justice, law and equity.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record of the case with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide order dated 02-06-2025. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of bail revolve around deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at bail stage and the grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds for granting bail are totally different. For cancellation of bail under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., it is mandatory that there should be repetition of offence, chance of absconsion, tempering of prosecution evidence, interference in the investigation, creates hurdles in investigation or tries to delay the trial, judgment/order passed by the learned lower Court is without jurisdiction or illegally exercise of jurisdiction, but no such like situation exists in the present case. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail and the same does not appear to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary.

8. It is a settled principle of law that once a bail is granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then it can only be recalled on exceptional grounds, such exceptional grounds are not existing in the instant case. Furthermore, no grounds for cancellation of bail have been substantiated by the petitioner/complainant in the instant Application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/order dated 02-06-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit. Consequently, the instant Criminal Misc. No.386/2025 as well as Cr. Misc. No.387/2025 filed under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail stands dismissed. File. JK/29/GB Revision dismissed.