2006 PLP 406 (YLR)
MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 406 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J |
| Parties | MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 406 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 406 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 406 (YLR) (MAZHAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Raza for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Business dealing existed between accused and complainant and due to said dealings cheque in question was handed over to complainant
Amount of cheque in question, had already been paid to complainant in due course of time and said cheque was not to be presented to Bank for encashment
In order to attract S.489-F, P.P.C., element of dishonesty should be shown, which element was absent in the present case as amount had already been paid to the complainant
Dishonouring of cheque would not mean that criminal case be registered forthwith, but purpose for which cheque was issued should be taken into account before initiating criminal action
Accused, in circumstances had made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt
Offence with which accused was charged being punishable only with three years' R.1., would not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Grant of bail, in such-like cases, was a rule and its refusal an exception--Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed in circumstances. Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State PLD 2005 Lah.607; Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1773 ref. Muhammad Yosuaf Syed for the State with Jasel Khan Awan, S.I., P.S. Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.
The petitioner, Mazhar Iqbal, seeks pre-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.80 of 2005, dated 6-4-2005, under section 489,-F, P.P.C. registered at Polcie Station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the petitioner-accused is alleged to have issued a Cheque No.5037317, dated 30-12-2004 for Rs.50,000 drawn on PICIC Bank Limited in the name of Zafar Iqbal, the complainant. This cheque was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. Accordingly, the case was registered against the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a business dealing with the petitioner and the complainant and it was due to these dealings that this cheque of Rs.50,000 was handed over to the present complainant. It is further submitted that in due course of time this amount has already been paid to the complainant and the cheque was not to be presented to the Bank for encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in order to prove his bona fide the petitioner has already deposited Rs.50,000 with the police and concludes that there was no element of dishonesty.
4. The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed this petition.
5. According to the petitioner, there was a business relationship between him and the complainant, in which they used to purchase second hand cars and sell the same. In this regard a cheque of Rs.50,000 had been given to the present complainant but this amount has already been subsequently paid to him. In order to attract section 489-F, P.P.C., element of dishonesty should be shown and dishonouring of cheque does not mean that criminal case be registered forthwith. The purpose for which the cheque is issued should be taken into account before initiating criminal action. Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State (PLD 2005 Lahore 607) is referred. The petitioner, under the circumstances, has made out a case of further inquiry requiring further prove into his guilt.
6. The offence so charged is punishable only with three years' R.I. and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34) that in such-like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereto is an exception. While relying on Ali Murtaza v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 1773 [Lahore]); the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 14-11-2005, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate.
7. The Illaqa Magistrate is directed to deposit/invest Rs.50,000 lying with the Investigating Officer of this case in any Government Profitable Scheme of National Savings Centre. The party found entitled to this amount shall also take the profit accrued thereupon.
8. With the above direction, this petition is allowed. H.B.T./M-1448/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.