Dishonestly issuing a cheque

Upon the failure of petitioner to deliver the stipulated goods and after providing successive but hollow assurances, he purportedly issued a cheque of Rs. 4,400,000/- intended to discharge his subsisting financial liability; however, the said cheque was subsequently dishonored upon presentation for encashment, thereby leading to the registration of FIR

Petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2023

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of Trial Court, the respondent No. 2/complainant preferred appeal before the High Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.03.2025 whereby the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to record statements of three witnesses as Court Witnesses, to obtain expert opinion regarding signatures and to decide the matter afresh after recording fresh statement of accused and hearing both the parties

Validity

Upon a holistic review of the settled principles, it could safely be concluded that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal was narrow, predicated on the "double presumption of innocence" where the initial presumption was significantly fortified by the judicial finding of the Trial Court

Such an acquittal could not be lightly interjected unless the impugned judgment was demonstrably perverse, arbitrary, or suffered from a shocking misreading of evidence that resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice

Furthermore, while Sections 423 and 428, Cr.P.C., conferred the power of remand, such discretion must be exercised with extreme caution and only upon the clear dictate of justice, ensuring that it did not serve to merely provide the prosecution a second opportunity to strengthen a doubtful case

So far as the finding of the High Court qua determination as to thumb impression and signatures of the petitioner on certain documents was concerned, the record showed that such finding of High Court was result of misreading of the record

High Court had observed that the evidentiary aspect concerning signatures and fingerprints was left unaddressed by the Trial Court without seeking expert opinion in terms of Article 59 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ("the Qanun-e-Shahadat"), however the record showed that the said aspect had not only been properly addressed by the Trial Court but also adequately discussed with reasons in its judgment

Trial Court while exercising such powers sent the disputed Affidavit/Halfnama to NADRA for automated fingerprints identification system to determine if the LTI embossed on it belonged to petitioner whereupon the NADRA authority reported that the thumb impression was having poor quality, hence could not be determined

Similarly, while exercising powers under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, the Trial Court compared the signatures of witness at evidence recorded before Court and upon disputed Affidavit/Halfnama with his alleged signatures on memo of seeing cheque and other documents which were found totally different

Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat empowered the Courts to visually compare the disputed signatures in order to ascertain whether the same were that of the person by whom it purported to have been written or made

So far as the omission to record ocular testimony of certain witnesses was concerned, the High Court concluded that failure to record their statements deprived the Trial Court of potentially crucial testimony, thereby limiting its ability to make an informed and just decision

In that regard, the High Court referred to Section 540, Cr.P.C., emphasizing that failure to exercise such power, where warranted, resulted in an incomplete and deficient trial

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed its evidence through statement of ADPP for the State

It was not asserted before Court that the evidence of three witnesses was new one which emerged after passing of judgment by the trial Court meaning thereby that the said evidence was always available to be presented before the trial Court at the time of trial

Similarly, it was observed that no effort was made by prosecution to present such evidence before the trial Court despite of its availability and having ample opportunity

In addition to that, the trial Court while appreciating the evidence discussed the lacuna of non-production of the said threewitnesses by prosecution during the proceedings of trial

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the judgment of High Court and restoring the judgment of Trial Court, in circumstances.

Petitioner / complainant was aggrieved of reducing amount of bail bond by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Revisional Court reduced the surety to Rupees five million Fardi instead of cash

Rule requiring surety amount to match dishonored cheque could not be applied universally in all cases

Amount of surety should not be used to penalize accused or deny bail in appropriate circumstances

Trial Court in the matters of bail, particularly relating to S.489-F, P.P.C., if it concludes that accused is entitled to bail, should not set surety amount, as a general rule, equal to dishonored cheques

It should be reasonable and based on facts and circumstances of each case to ensure that purpose of granting bail is not defeated

Purpose of asking accused to provide surety is not to punish him but to guarantee his attendance in Court

Amount of surety should be determined based on the nature of offence and means of accused, so that main goal of granting bail is not undermined and accused does not have to endure suffering of jail unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs. 24,210,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., carries a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and therefore, did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

In such category of offences, the grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception

It was alleged by the accused-petitioner that the cheque was neither issued dishonestly nor with the intent to defraud the complainant, but was merely furnished as a guarantee-cum-security cheque

In such circumstances, it would be a matter for determination during trial as to whether any business transaction actually existed between the parties and what was the true picture and purpose of the cheque in question

Said aspect, prima facie, rendered the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs.21,00,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds

The offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., entails maximum punishment up to three (03) years and does not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Regarding the offences which do not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception

Petitioner is behind the bars since 28.04.2025 and he cannot be kept confined for an unlimited period

Thus, the case of petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of post arrest bail

Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for issuing cheque amounting to Rs. forty lakhs to complainant in lieu of cash amount of complainant given to accused on profit basis, for agriculture business, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds

Complainant admitted during his cross-examination that he did not obtain any receipt of the payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- to the accused

Complainant also admitted that he was an employee and not a businessman, and his salary was Rs. 50,000/= per month, with monthly savings up to Rs. 30,000/

However, complainant was unable to establish in evidence from where did he obtain such a huge amount

Complainant attempted to improve his case in evidence for the first time by claiming that two of his brothers had also invested in the principal amount

Complainant also produced an agreement dated 27-08-2020, allegedly made between him and accused after more than two years of handing over the alleged cash amount

However, such an agreement was completely silent about any agricultural business

Moreover, neither complainant nor his witnesses deposed any description of the agricultural business

Complainant claimed that the agreement was executed in presence of witnesses

On the contrary, one of the witnesses admitted in his evidence that he had no knowledge about the terms and conditions settled in between the complainant and the accused, nor any knowledge about any profit amount

Said witness also admitted that the alleged agreement was prepared by the complainant

Said witness also admitted that the handwriting on the subject cheque was of the complainant and not of the accused

Despite claiming to be the alleged co-investor of the principal amount and despite being the alleged marginal witness of the said agreement, said witness did not support the complainant's version, nor did he know anything about the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement

Sanctity, authenticity and existence of such belated agreement, therefore, became doubtful

Said witness also admitted that the complainant was employed and was not doing business, as claimed in the FIR

Complainant's handwriting, both on the cheque and on the agreement, casted serious doubts on the entire allegations

Investigating Officer also admitted that neither did he verify the stamp paper of said agreement, nor did he record the statement of any independent person, to testify about the said transaction whereas, witness and the complainant were both real brothers

Complainant therefore utterly failed to establish the handing over of an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- cash to the accused

Complainant also failed to bring on record any specification and detail of his alleged business

Complainant's claim of doing business was contradicted by a witness

Complainant had, therefore, failed to bring forward any reliable proof which could substantiate that the cheque in question was for the fulfillment of any obligation, so also the consequential 'dishonesty' against the accused

Once the accused had denied the very existence of any transaction between the parties, the primary burden to prove the same was on the complainant; however, it appeared that the complainant utterly failed to establish the existence of any obligation and agreement between the complainant and the accused; most of his statements remained un-established

Witness also contradicted his statement in the FIR, the Investigating Officer also could not support complainant; and lastly, he also contradicted his own statement

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the applicant was that he issued four cheques in lieu of payment for a vehicle purchased from the complainant, which cheques were dishonoured upon presentation

Circumstances of the case revealed that the FIR was registered after a considerable delay of more than three years without any plausible explanation

Such an unusual delay casted doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and warranted further inquiry into the genuineness of the transaction as well as the actual liability of the applicant in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Since the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., the applicant had made out a case for confirmation of bail

Principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception must also be kept in view, especially where the prosecution's own case suffered from delay and material deficiencies

The matter essentially had arisen out of a business transaction between the parties relating to the sale of a vehicle, thereby giving the case a strong color of civil dispute

Complainant had not placed on record any sale agreement, transfer documents or other supporting evidence to substantiate the transaction beyond the narration of the FIR

Such missing elements raised serious doubts which could not be ignored at this stage

Furthermore, the applicant was not a habitual offender nor he had any previous criminal record

Police raided the house of applicant and the apprehension of arrest further justified the applicant's plea that he was being subjected to undue harassment

On the tentative assessment, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail was made under S.498, Cr.P.C

Petition was allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused-respondent was that he issued cheque in consideration of purchasing of a vehicle from the petitioner/complainant and when the cheque was presented before the bank concerned, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, hence the FIR was lodged

Accused-respondent was arrested in the said FIR

Accused-respondent filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate but was rejected

Being aggrieved, the accused-respondent filed bail application before the Sessions Court, which was allowed

Validity

From perusal of the record, it was evident that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the Sessions Judge

Grounds urged by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of bail revolved around deeper appreciation of evidence which was not permissible at bail stage and the grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds for granting bail were totally different

For cancellation of bail under S.497(5), Cr.P.C., it was mandatory that there should be repetition of offence; chance of absconsion; tempering of prosecution evidence; interference in the investigation; creation of hurdles in investigation, or a try to delay the trial; judgment/order passed by the lower Court being without jurisdiction or illegal exercis of jurisdiction, but no such like situation existed in the present case

Court had exercised its discretion in granting bail and the same did not appear to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary

Moreover, once a bail was granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then it could only be recalled on exceptional grounds, such exceptional grounds were not existing in the instant case

Furthermore, no grounds for cancellation of bail had been substantiated by the petitioner/complainant in the instant application

Application filed under S.497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Said offence was admittedly, of the category which fell within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.)

While considering the grant of bail, for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, but might be declined in exceptional cases

Extra ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, included likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated

Quantum of amount involved in a case registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., could not be treated as an exception to the general rule that in cases falling under the category of non-prohibitory clause, bail shall be considered favourably

Offence under section 489-F of P.P.C. was not a provision which was intended by the legislature to be used for recovery of the alleged amount

Criminal proceedings were meant to determine the guilt and then to sentence an accused

Legislature had set out the framework for recovery of an alleged amount in case of a dishonoured cheque under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Petitioner in this case was, therefore, entitled to be granted bail since the State counsel had not been able to persuade that exceptional circumstances existed in order to justify denying to the petitioner the concession of post arrest bail

Moreover, whether or not the alleged offence was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case also required further probe

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, and accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Accused was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant, which was dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank

Complainant stated in his statement that the accused had been his friend for the last fifteen years and he purchased a house from him and an outstanding amount of Rs.58,00,000/- was due against the accused which he had to pay to him

In that regard, the accused dishonestly issued a cheque to the complainant which was dishonored on presentation due to the fact that the account was dormant

During cross-examination, complainant admitted that the house in question was mortgaged by one Mr. "S" with the National Bank of Pakistan meaning thereby that factually the house belonged to that Mr. "S"

In view of such fact, the question arose that in what capacity the complainant sold out the house which was in the name of Mr. "S"

Moreso the prosecution neither cited said Mr. "S" as a witness in the challan nor produced him before the Court

In order to establish the version put forth by the complainant, the presence of such important witness would have further strengthened the prosecution's version

Non-production of such an important witness as provided under Art.129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would cast adverse inference, which raised the irresistible conclusion that if the said witness had been produced he would not have supported the prosecution version

Complainant neither produced any receipt of the alleged transaction effected between him and the accused in respect of the house in question nor any mutation entries, which were in the name of the complainant, were produced before the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

To constitute an offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C., dishonesty on the part of the payer is a condition precedent in the issuance of a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation

Thus, it is for the Court to consider that under which circumstances, the cheque was issued and what was the intention of the person, issuing it

Hence, mere issuance of a cheque and it being dishonored by itself is not an offence, unless and until dishonesty on the part of a payer is proved.

Accused was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant, which was dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank

Cheque being the mode of payment must appear to have been issued against business consideration or any other dealing of the date and time thereof, showing that the issuer was liable to pay the amount for the consideration of which he had issued the cheque

If the issuance of such cheque was no meaningful transaction creating an instant liability of payment of the amount thereof, against certain consideration involved therein, no criminal liability would prima-facie accrue in case of any cheque so issued and dishonored, since where there was no such liability there was no fraud or dishonesty

Admittedly, in the present case the complainant had absolutely failed to establish on record that there had been any transaction between him and the petitioner for which the cheque had been issued and subsequently was declared dishonored

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant, which was dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank

Complainant, during cross-examination changed his version with respect to the purchase of the house by the accused from him and he stated that he sold out three vehicles to the accused and the accused gave some amount to him and in respect of the other outstanding amount he gave a cheque to him

Complainant also made dishonest improvement in his statement when for the first time he introduced allegation of purchasing of the vehicle by the accused from him

Change in the version of the complainant was not an outcome of frail human memory, rather was deliberately made with a nefarious design of bringing his testimony in conformity with the alleged cheque issued by the accused in his favour, thus, it in no manner could be brushed aside

Moreover, it was the purity of a testimony which led a Court to pronounce a guilty verdict and if such purity was polluted through dishonest improvements, the eye-witness lost his credibility rendering his evidence not worthy of any credence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he issued two cheques to the complainant which on presentation to the concerned bank were dishonoured

Perusal of the case record would reveal that petitioner was charged for issuance of cheques amounting to Rs.41,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, which were dishonoured on its presentation before the bank concerned

Offence with which the petitioner was charged did not fall within the restrictive clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.

Besides, the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C, in punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three (03) years or with fine or with both

When the law provides punishment in terms of imprisonment or with fine or with both and the offence is not covered by restrictive clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, then in such like offences, grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Section 397, Cr.P.C provides that even if an accused person was sentenced in two or more cases and tried separately, in such eventuality, such sentences could be ordered to run concurrently

Applying the said yardstick to the case of petitioner, the case of the petitioner would be covered under S. 397, Cr.P.C., as he too had been convicted for the same kind of offence in different trials

In case earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of handing down the subsequent conviction/sentence, the Trial or Appellate/Revisional Court could exercise such jurisdiction even after the sentence of imprisonment in subsequent trial was announced in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., read with S. 397, Cr.P.C., provided of course, where the trial, or Superior Courts of appeal have specifically and consciously ordered the sentences either in same trial or in subsequent trial to run consecutively

Thus, there remains no doubt that the High Court has jurisdiction under S. 561-A read with S. 35 and or S. 397, Cr.P.C., as the case may, to order such multiple sentences in same transaction/trial or in a separate and subsequent trial to run concurrently

Section 397, Cr.P.C, shows that the Court, while analyzing the facts and circumstances of every case, is competent to direct that sentences in two different trials would run concurrently

In such eventuality, the Court has wide power to direct that sentences in one trial would run concurrently

Provision of S. 397, Cr.P.C., conferred wide discretion on the Court to extend such benefit to the accused in a case of peculiar nature, like the present one

Thus, extending the beneficial provision in favour of the appellant would clearly meet the ends of justice

Constitutional petition was allowed and High Court directed that sentences of the petitioner shall run concurrently instead of consecutively.

Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused on the report of Investigating Officer from whom the investigation had been transferred

Appellant (complainant) was aggrieved of orders passed by single Judge in Chambers of High Court whereby his constitutional petition was dismissed

Validity

Perusal of the impugned order showed that the Single Judge had declined to interfere in the impugned discharge order passed by the Judicial Magistrate for the reason that the appellant had already filed a private complaint for the same offence, in which the discharged accused had already been summoned to face trial

Despite discharge order, police authorities may reinvestigate the matter which was already being done in the instant case as per statement made by the prosecutor, hence, no further order was required to be passed in this appeal as the impugned order passed by the Single Judge did not suffer from any illegality and jurisdictional defect for this Court to warrant interference

Intra Court Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In the present case, the petitioner (accused) was arrested in the case on 30.07.2022 and sent to jail on the same day where he was confined till now i.e. for more than a period of one year and 10 months and trial of the case had not concluded

Case had been registered against the petitioner under S.489-F, P.P.C, and same was not punishable with death

Statutory period for grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial of the case was continuous detention exceeding one year as per 3rd proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

It was not disputed by the prosecutor and the complainant that petitioner was behind the bars for a continuous period exceeding one year and ten months

Perusal of the record revealed that challan report under S.173, Cr.P.C., was received in the Court on 19.11.2022, charge was framed against the accused on 20.01.2023 and prosecution witnesses were summoned for 03.02.2023, however, prosecution witnesses did not appear before the Court till 17.10.2023 inspite of summoning them through warrants of their arrest

Meaning thereby that after arrest of the petitioner on 30.07.2022, continuous period of detention of the petitioner exceeding one year lapsed without conclusion of the trial and said delay was not caused due to any act or omission of the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf

Prosecutor and the complainant could not refer to any material to show that petitioner was a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to opine at this stage petitioner was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Moreover, after completion of statutory period, if any adjournment had been obtained by the accused, it did not disentitle him for grant of bail on ground of delay in conclusion of trial rather he was entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right

Therefore, a right to be released on post-arrest bail had accrued to the petitioner due to delay in conclusion of trial of the case under 3rd proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

If case for grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial has been made out then bail is granted as a "right" under 3rd proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial of the case was allowed, in circumstances.

In the present case, the petitioner (accused) was arrested in the case on 30.07.2022 and sent to jail on the same day where he was confined till now i.e. for more than a period of one year and 10 months and trial of the case had not concluded

Case had been registered against the petitioner under S.489-F, P.P.C and same was not punishable with death

Statutory period for grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial of the case was continuous detention exceeding one year as per 3rd proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

It was not disputed by the prosecutor and the complainant that petitioner was behind the bars for a continuous period exceeding one year and ten months

Perusal of the record revealed that challan report under S.173, Cr.P.C., was received in the Court on 19.11.2022, charge was framed against the accused on 20.01.2023 and prosecution witnesses were summoned for 03.02.2023, however, prosecution witnesses did not appear before the Court till 17.10.2023 inspite of summoning them through warrants of their arrest

Meaning thereby that after arrest of the petitioner on 30.07.2022, continuous period of detention of the petitioner exceeding one year lapsed without conclusion of the trial and said delay was not caused due to any act or omission of the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf

Prosecutor and the complainant could not refer to any material to show that petitioner was a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to opine at this stage that petitioner was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Moreover, after completion of statutory period, if any adjournment had been obtained by the accused, it did not disentitle him for grant of bail on ground of delay in conclusion of trial rather he was entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right

Therefore, a right to be released on post-arrest bail had accrued to the petitioner due to delay in conclusion of trial of the case under 3rd proviso to S.497 (1), Cr.P.C.

If case for grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial has been made out then bail is granted as a "right" under 3rd proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial of the case was allowed, in circumstances.

As per record, the applicant issued two cheques each for Rs. 7 lacs, dated 12-01-2019, drawn on Meezan Bank, to fulfill a financial obligation and both were dishonored due to insufficient funds

Defence plea of coercion was an afterthought, as the applicant failed to present any credible evidence documentary or oral to support his claim that the cheques were obtained under duress at Police Station in presence of Police Officer

Applicant's failure to examine himself on oath under S.340(2),Cr.P.C., or to produce any independent witness to corroborate his stance further weakened his case

Contradictions in the applicant's statements, particularly his own application to Citizen-Police Liaison Committee, where he admitted issuing postdated cheques and merely requested time to pay, negated his claim of coercion

Delay in lodging the FIR was convincingly explained by the prosecution and the dishonor of cheques was corroborated by Bank Officials and documentary evidence, including return memos and confirmation reports

Trial Court and Appellate Court properly evaluated the evidence and there was no legal infirmity, misreading of evidence, or violation of due process that would justify interference by the High Court

Essential ingredients of S.489-F, P.P.C., i.e. issuance of cheque, dishonesty, fulfillment of an obligation and subsequent dishonor were fully met, warranting conviction

In the present case, the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements constituting an offence under S.489-F, P.P.C

However, the applicant failed to substantiate his defence, thereby confirming the offence against him

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the relevant law in convicting the applicant

Criminal revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused-petitioner was charged for issuing cheques dishonestly, which were dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank

No doubt the applicant was nominated in the FIR; however, it was registered with an inordinate delay of more than five months, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution

Delay in criminal cases had always been deprecated by the superior Courts

As far as the amount in question was concerned, the applicants had placed on record number of documents through statements, which on perusal revealed that the parties had strained relations over a business transaction; hence, they disputed the claim of each other

In view of earlier litigation between parties, the element of mala fide on the part of complainant could not be ruled out

Hence, the basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail, were very much attracted and applicable to present case

Moreover, there were disputed facts which were to be thrashed out by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties at trial

Hence, the case against the applicants required further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C.

Consequently, bail application was allowed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant earlier was confirmed.

Accused-petitioners were charged for issuing cheques dishonestly, which were dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank

No doubt the applicants were nominated in the FIR; however, it was registered with an inordinate delay of about 47 days, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution

Delay in criminal cases was always deprecated by the superior Courts

As far as the amount in question was concerned, the applicants had placed on record number of documents through statements, which on perusal revealed that the parties had strained relations over some business transactions; hence, had disputed the claim of each other

In view of earlier litigation between parties, the element of mala fide on the part of complainant could not be ruled out

Hence, the basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were very much attracted and applicable to the case

Moreover, there were disputed facts which were to be thrashed out by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties at trial

Hence, the case against the applicants required further enquiry within the meaning of subsection(2) to S.497, Cr.P.C.

Consequently, bail application was allowed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants earlier was confirmed, in circumstances.

No doubt the applicant was nominated in the FIR; however, it was registered with an inordinate delay of about 01 months and 23 days, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution

Delay in criminal cases was always been deprecated

As far as the amount in question was concerned, the applicant had placed on record number of documents through his statement, which on perusal revealed that the parties had strained relations over a business transactions; hence, thus disputed the claim of each other

In view of earlier litigation between them, the element of mala fide on the part of complainant could not be ruled out

Moreover, there were disputed facts which were to be thrashed out by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties at trial

Hence, the case against the applicant required further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C.

Consequently, bail application was allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant earlier was confirmed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner was that he dishonestly issued one cheque amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- and second cheque amounting to Rs. 500,000/- in favour of the complainant

Second cheque amounting to Rs. 500,000/- when presented in the bank for encashment was dishonoured

Record evinced that the petitioner was running a business and bank statements of the petitioner from 01.01.2021 to 09.04.2024 indicated certain business transactions with the complainant and others

In such circumstances, whether the cheques in question were issued towards fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of S.489-F P.P.C was a question which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Maximum punishment of offence provided under S.489-F P.P.C, was not more than imprisonment for three years or fine or both, as such, the same was not covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of S.497 Cr.P.C

In non-bailable offences falling in the second category i.e. punishment with imprisonment for less than ten years, the grant of bail was a rule and refusal an exception

No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant

For recovery of amount, civil proceedings provided remedies under O.XXXVII C.P.C. and in that regard, civil suit was pending adjudication between the parties before the civil Court

Moreover, involvement of a huge amount did not enlarge the punitive scope of S.489-F P.P.C and it was no ground for refusal of bail

Allegedly, other cases of similar nature had been registered against the petitioner, but mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused did not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he had a prima facie case

Petitioner was behind the bars since 22.01.2025 and his physical custody was no more required by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of further investigation

As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

The underlying transaction was the same: the three cheques were issued for payment of the same amount in instalments, which, in any event, per the petitioner's case, were issued under coercion in the police station

Registration of the other two FIRs was plainly contrary to the settled law

The proper legal route would have been to add the offence of S.489-F in the original FIR, as the antecedent question of the financial obligation allegedly owed by the petitioner to the complainant was pivotal to bring home the charges under the original FIR , and the Courts below committed a grave error by deciding the S.489-F FIR without waiting for the original FIR 594/21 to be decided first

There was patent misreading of the evidence in the trial by both the Courts below, and also that the conclusion of law of the financial obligation premised on the presumption of consideration was incorrect, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice, with the petitioner ending up serving a sentence that could not be awarded to him

High Court set-aside the petitioner's conviction and he was acquitted of the charge for which he was convicted

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

There was no evidence of payment through bank to the petitioner, with no sight of the tax default notice, with the complainant admitting, while appearing himself in witness-box, that he had no direct dealings with the petitioner and with no appointment letter of the petitioner; it was a gross miscarriage of justice for the Courts below to conclude that the financial obligation underlying the cheques was established beyond reasonable doubt solely because the complainant had so deposed in his examination-in-chief

The prosecution case has to stand on its own strength, and not on an inferential basis that the underlying element of actus reus of the offence ( i.e. existence of a financial obligation) which had to be proved independently by the prosecution, but which was not proven to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt

Mere issuance of a cheque which stood dishonoured on presentation does not per se constitute the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., unless some evidence of the underlying financial transaction accompanies it

There was patent misreading of the evidence in the trial by both the Courts below and also that the conclusion of law of the financial obligation premised on the presumption of consideration was incorrect, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice, with the petitioner ending up serving a sentence that could not be awarded to him

High Court set-aside the petitioner's conviction and the appellant was acquitted of the charge for which he was convicted

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Record revealed that the presumption of consideration under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881( ' the Act 1881') was wrongly relied to presume the existence of the key ingredient of an underlying financial obligation

The presumption of consideration under the Act 1881 is for civil disputes, which does not apply to criminal matters and does not dispense the prosecution's duty to establish the underlying financial obligation beyond reasonable doubt

For the purposes of the civil courts, the Act 1881 lays down that the presumption is that a promissory note has been passed for consideration and said rule of law would not necessarily apply to a criminal trial in which every element which goes to constitute a particular offence has to be proved by the prosecution

In the present case , it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the promissory notes were for consideration and it was not for the accused to prove the contrary.

Section.489-F did not exist when the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was passed; if it did, undoubtedly , the framers of the Act would have added that the presumption did not apply in criminal trials for the reason that the operation of such a presumption would obviate the need for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence by independent evidence, with the unsalutary consequence that the burden of proof for both civil trials and criminal trials in cases of dishonour of cheques would become one of a balance of probabilities only, and the prosecution would then rest by simply producing a dishonoured cheque for the guilt of the accused to follow as a necessary consequence of the presumption of consideration

That would run counter to the very foundations of criminal jurisprudence.

Accused was charged for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds when presented before the concerned bank

From perusal of record it transpired that there was almost 3½ months unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR

Challan against the accused/petitioner had yet not been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction despite lapse of more than eight months of the registration of the FIR, which was violation of mandatory provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner/accusedwas behind the bars for the last more than eight months and there was no progress regarding trial of case against the petitioner/ accused, whereas maximum punishment under S.489-F, P.P.C, was three years

Reportedly, the complainant had filed a suit against the petitioner/accused for recovery of the disputed amount, as such, the case of the petitioner/accused seemed to be a civil nature

Moreover, offence under S.489-F, P.P.C, did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Grant of bail in offences not falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., was a rule and refusal thereof was an exception

Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he had dishonestly issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant to pay the liability of rent of a plot, which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned bank

From perusal of record it transpired that the accused/petitioner was involved in three criminal cases registered under S.489-F, P.P.C

Admittedly, accused/ petitioner had issued three cheques to complainants which on presentation before the concerned bank bounced due to insufficient amount in the account of the present petitioner/accused

No possibility of false implication of the petitioner or substitution or mistaken identity existed because he was known to the complainants

Accused/petitioner though was not convicted in any case previously, but his involvement in three cases of similar nature was sufficient to declare him habitual offender and apprehension existed that if he was released on bail, he could repeat the offence and there also existed apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail, as he belonged to another Province

Offence with which the petitioner/accused was charged, no doubt did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

But it was not rule of law that in each and every case which is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted to the accused without considering the gravity of the offence

Courts cannot be oblivious to the material collected by prosecution and after looking into it and making tentative assessment of evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out it can refuse bail even in cases which are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years

Bail petitions being devoid of merit were dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused-respondent was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant which was dishonoured when presented before the bank concerned, due to insufficient fund

Perusal of record should that there was five months and twenty days unexplained delay in lodging the FIR

Record showed that there was a bonafide transaction of land between the complainant and accused/respondent as the complainant had sold out one Kanal and five Marlas land to the respondent/accused in consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- as evident from the sale deed dated 10-01-2021

Out of Rs. 85,00,000/-, Rs. 55,00,000/- had been paid to the complainant by the accused/respondent

Land in question had not yet been transferred in the name of respondent/accused

Thus, the controversy/dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and that controversy could be resolved through filing a civil suit in the Civil Court, hence case of the respondent/accused required further inquiry

Moreover, offence under S.489-F, P.P.C did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, as punishment prescribed for the offence is not beyond three years

Grant of bail in the offences which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, is a rule and refusal is an exception

Moreover, deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible in cases of bail or cancellation of bail

Where the Court of competent jurisdiction grants bail to the accused, strong grounds are required for its cancellation

For cancellation of bail, the Court has to see whether the accused after being released on bail is creating hindrance for the complainant party, tampering with the prosecution witnesses, or misusing concession of bail

Perusal of record depicted that all such ingredients were lacking in favour of the complainant

Petition for cancellation of bail being bereft of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 18,50,000/- to the complainant and the same was dishonoured on presentation before concerned bank due to insufficient balance

From perusal of record it appeared that the present petitioner/accused was directly charged in the FIR with specific role of issuing cheque to the complainant which on presentation before the concerned Bank was declared bounced because of insufficient amount in his account

No possibility of the fake implication of the accused/petitioner or substitution existed because he was known to the complainant and transaction of vehicle between the parties was admitted

Although offence under S.489-F, P.P.C, did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but it was not universal rule of law that in each and every case which was 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 the present case, he had issued five more cheques to different persons which on presentation before the concerned Banks were declared bounced due to insufficient balance/amount in the account of the petitioner/accused

Accordingly five more cases under S.489-F, P.P.C, had been registered against the present petitioner/accused

Accused/petitioner though was not convicted in any of the said previous cases, but involvement of the petitioner/accused in five more cases of similar nature was sufficient to declare him habitual offender and apprehension existed that if he was released on bail he could repeat the offence and there also existed apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail

Petitioner/accused had deceived and deprived six persons/complainant from their huge amount, as such the petitioner/accused was not entitled for concession of bail

Petitioner/accused had not been able to make out the case for grant of post arrest bail in his favour

Hence, bail petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

It was yet to be established at the trial as to whether the disputed cheque was issued by the petitioner (accused) to the complainant with dishonest intention; as to whether the purpose of issuance of disputed cheque was to repay loan to fulfil an obligation or as to whether the same was handed over (in blank) by the petitioner as guarantee for business transaction with the complainant

On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the apprehension of the petitioner about his arrest by the police at the behest of the complainant with ulterior motives to create humiliation and unjustified harassment could not be ruled out of consideration

Case against the petitioner also fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed.

Additionally, the complainant was unable to provide any receipt for the cash amount allegedly received by the petitioner

Question whether the cheque was issued towards fulfilment of an obligation within the meaning of section 489-F P.P.C. was a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Petitioner was behind bars since his arrest

Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 489- F, P.P.C. was three years and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

Foundational elements to constitute an offense under section 489-F, P.P.C. are the issuance of the cheque with dishonest intent; the cheque should be towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation; and lastly that the cheque is dishonoured

In the present case the agreement in question was executed between petitioner (accused) and person "MA" regarding a plot

Perusal of said agreement indicated that the cheque in question was issued as "Guarantee" from the petitioner to "MA"

Complainant had failed to produce any receipt issued by the petitioner while receiving cash amount of 2,00,000/-.

Tentative assessment of the record showed that the cheque was not towards the fulfillment of any obligation but rather it was given as security

Prima facie, it did not attract the elements of section 489-F, P.P.C.

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to pre-arrest bail.

Contention of the petitioner/complainant was that Ex-officio Justice of Peace had wrongly ordered to register the case against one of the partners only who signed the cheque: that the other two partners (respondents Nos. 4 and 6) being partners of the joint business were also collectively liable for the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C

Validity

Term "whoever" in S. 489-F, P.P.C., encompasses all offenders without distinction, whether natural or juristic persons

Corporation could be liable under S. 489-F, P.P.C. for dishonestly issuing a bad cheque

However, the guilt of an individual who authors the cheque on behalf of the corporation depends on his role, position, and authority within the organization and whether he holds the status of its "directing mind"

Certain provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 such as Ss. 10, 12 & 24, impose criminal liability on partners for the actions of another partner in specific circumstances

Determination of criminal liability for dishonestly issuing a cheque was governed by S. 489-F, P.P.C. read with S. 29A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

All the elements of the offence must be established accordingly to hold a partner guilty

In the present case, respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were not the signatories of Cheque under question

Section 29A of the Act, ibid explicitly stated that no person is liable as a maker, drawer, endorser, or acceptor of a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque unless they have signed it as such

Therefore, respondents Nos. 4 and 6 could not be prosecuted under S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Importantly, the petitioner had submitted a copy of the Partnership Deed executed between respondents Nos.4 to 6 by which they established the firm

According to Clause 7 of the Partnership Deed, respondent No. 5 was designated as the firm's Managing Partner

Furthermore, Clause 8 stated that the firm would maintain bank account/accounts with selected bank/banks, which would be operated exclusively by respondent No. 5

Such clauses, along with others, indicated that while respondents Nos. 4 to 6 shared profits and losses equally, regardless of their capital contribution, respondent No. 5 was responsible for managing the business

In his application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner asserted that respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were present with respondent No. 5 during the business transaction conducted in his office

However, petitioner had neither alleged in the said application nor brought any evidence on record suggesting that respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were complicit in dishonesty with respondent No. 5 when cheque under dispute was issued

Impugned order did not call for interference by the High Court, in circumstances

Petition had no merit and was dismissed.

Accused borrowed Rs. 18,00,000/- from complainant and issued a cheque for repayment of loan which was dishonoured upon presentation

Accused filed a petition for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed

Accused then filed a criminal miscellaneous application for the same relief

Both the parties entered into a settlement during the pendency of that application

Court granted bail on the terms and condition of settlement acknowledged by the accused

According to the settlement, accused made partial payment in cash and undertook to pay the remaining sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- within six months, but he had defaulted

Effect

Petitioner's father lodged F.I.R against the accused for the dishonoring of the cheque

Now that the complainant had died, the petitioner was an interested party and competent to apply under S.497(5), Cr.P.C

In the circumstances, the objection of accused regarding the maintainability of the application was overruled

Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused pursuant to his compromise with complainant

Accused paid a part of the outstanding amount in cash and undertook to pay the remaining amount Rs. 14,00,000/- within six months but had defaulted

Since the bail of accused was conditional and subject to due performance of his obligations, therefore, it must be recalled

Application was accepted and the pre-arrest bail granted to accused was cancelled, in circumstances.

Record revealed that though it was mentioned in the FIR that complainant had to take amount (Rs 32,00,000/-) from the petitioner/accused yet during entire investigation of the case, it had not come on the record that when, before whom and for which reason as well as for what purpose, said amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner and how it was due to complainant from him( petitioner), therefore, applicability of S.489-F P.P.C. in the present case itself requires further probe/inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

Bail was granted to the accused, in circumstances.

Section 489-F, Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), was brought on the statute for the purpose of awarding punishment to the person, who issues the cheque dishonestly for repayment of a loan or fulfillment, of an "obligation", which is dishonoured on presentation

For invoking section: 489-F, P.P.C., mere issuance of cheque or its dishonouring is not sufficient rather first of all it will have to be proved as a "must" that cheque was issued for repayment of loan or fulfilment of obligation, meaning thereby that there must be material available on the record to show loan or obligation.

Tentative assessment of the record reflected that the alleged cheque was dishonoured by the bank on 26.08.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 28.09.2022 with an inordinate delay of more than 26 days without any explanation of the delay

Delay in criminal cases, particularly when it was unexplained, is always presumed to be fatal for the prosecution

Sentence for the offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was three years and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception

Concession of bail is a procedural relief having nothing to do with the ultimate fate of the trial

If a person is otherwise found entitled to the concession of bail, his liberty could not be curtailed on the ground of the charge being of a heavy amount

In such cases rule is bail and not jail

Deviation from such rule could only be made in exceptional circumstances if there is an apprehension of abscondence; if there is an apprehension of repetition of offense; if there is an apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Bail application was accepted, in circumstances.

Record showed that earlier bail petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court on merits with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within one month but the needful could not be done which necessitated present petition

Directions to conclude the trial within a specific time frame were administrative in nature, and non-compliance of the same for whatever reasons, might not be a ground to seek bail as of right

Another important aspect of the matter was that ordinarily bail was to be allowed to an accused person on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial where the period of custody was shocking, unconscionable or inordinate and not otherwise

After examining the case of the petitioner and the law laid down on the subject, in the attending circumstances of the case, the ground of delay in conclusion of trial pursuant to the directions by the High Court, was not by itself a valid ground

Basis of delay to ask for post arrest bail, through this second petition, was not "shocking" and, therefore, could not be made basis as a "fresh ground" to ask for post-arrest bail at this stage

Consequently, bail petition was dismissed.

Petitioner/accused approached Islamabad High Court a second time to get protective bail qua a case having been registered in Quetta

Plea of the petitioner was that due to Eid vacations he could not approach the Court of competent jurisdiction after availing protective bail for the first time

Validity

Concept of protective bail finds its roots from S. 498-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, but has no definitive provision under which remedy could be sought

It is a concept developed primarily by the Courts to protect the liberty of the person and to facilitate him to approach the competent Court or authority to surrender and seek remedy

It is akin to the right of any person to have access to justice

Said remedy is purely based on the discretion of the Court and no crystallized principles or Rules exist regarding its scope and application

Petitioner/accused has to satisfy the conscious of the Court that under the umbrella of access to justice, he has to approach the competent Court or forum and be protected by way of an order preventing his arrest

Where the petitioner does not follow the orders of the Court and flouts the same without any plausible justification and seeks protection repeatedly there is no compulsion on the court to grant remedy or protection

In the present case, conduct of the petitioner was not aboveboard inasmuch as earlier he was granted protective bail for almost 12 days and had approached only now in the second protective bail

Explanation for not approaching the Court of first instance (in Quetta) and filing present second protective bail after lapse of almost three months did not satisfy the conscious of the Court in exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner

High Court was not inclined to extend the discretionary relief to the petitioner

Petition for grant of protective bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Admittedly the accused/ respondent had been charged in the case FIR for issuance of alleged cheque as described in the FIR

Allegedly an agreement deed had been affected between the parties outside the court and ostensibly it appeared that the petitioner/accused haddeceived the complainant and had not cooperated with the Investigation Officer, which was a condition of the compromise deed

However, neither the accused/respondent misused the bail facility nor there was any allegation that after getting bail the accused/respondent tried to temper with prosecution evidence and threatened the prosecution witnesses or interfered and hampered with the course of trial or there was an imminent apprehension that the accused/ respondent would leave the area and would abscond

Bail granted by the Sessions Judge was neither patently illegal, factually incorrect nor had resulted in miscarriage of justice

No reasonable ground existed for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent

Application for the cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Section 489-F of P.P.C. is not a provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount, rather for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings provide remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of C.P.C.

In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of section 489-F, P.P.C. is a question, which would be resolved by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence

Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five months

Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

All the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation

Case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail.

Admittedly, the petitioner (accused) was tenant of the complainant and prima facie any claim for recovery of rent falls within the domain of Rent Controller

In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheque was issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of section 489-F, P.P.C. is a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months

Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

All the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation

Case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.

Petitioner (accused) has placed on record a copy of the suit for rendition of accounts filed by him against the complainant before the Civil Court

Perusal of the same shows that the parties were probably running a business and the cheques were given as a surety and the same were not meant for encashment

Cheques in question are of the year 2019 and according to the crime report the same were dishonoured in the year 2019

If that was so, it was not understandable as to why the complainant kept quiet for three years and did not lodge the FIR on time, which prima facie supports the stance taken by the petitioner

Even otherwise, even if the complainant wants to recover his money, section 489-F of P.P.C. is not a provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount

Question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of section 489-F, P.P.C. is a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

All the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner was confirmed.

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.

Petitioner (complainant) entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with the accused for the sale of a sugar mill for a price of Rs.840 million

Accused initially paid Rs.500 million and issued a postdated cheque for Rs.340 million, which was dishonored on presentation on the instructions given by the accused to his Bank to stop payment

Plea of accused that dispute related to a commercial transaction between the parties, and the complainant was required to fulfill his end of the bargain before he could encash the cheque; that since complainant had failed to fulfill his obligations under the agreement, he was not entitled to encash the cheque

High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused

Validity

Commercial integrity is an ethical standard which would require evidence for establishing its absence in the conduct of an accused to a degree that constitutes dishonesty by him within the meaning of section 489-F, P.P.C.

In the facts of the present case, such an assessment can be made at the trial to evaluate whether any improper benefit, if at all, has been derived by the accused on account of the stoppage of payment of his cheque which was wrongful

Such aspect of the matter cannot be determined at the bail stage in the present case

As dishonesty is an ingredient of the offence under section 489-F of the P.P.C., therefore, the cancellation of pre-arrest bail can be ordered in the instant case if the element of dishonesty is presently indicated from the conduct of the accused

Evidentiary material to such effect is lacking on record at the present stage

Indeed, if evidence on the point is brought at the trial, the finding thereon will depend on the significance and materiality of the obligation claimed by the accused to have been breached by the complainant under the terms of the bargain between the parties

Petition for leave to appeal seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused was dismissed and leave was refused.

Dishonouring of the cheque even if become part of prosecution evidence bring home the charges would entail punishment to the maximum 3 years or with fine or with both but it is also to be taken into consideration that when there is exception for refusal of bail even for the offence where grant of bail is a rule, bail may be and can be refused

Mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. would not mean that such an offence had become a bailable offence

Discretion still remains with the competent Court to consider whether a person accused of such an offence does or does not deserve the grant of bail in accordance with established norms governing the exercise of such a power.

No mala fide or ulterior motive had been attributed on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the case

Before his dismissal from service, the accused was serving as Director Finance of the college, who had robbed the college by committing breach of trust

Accused by filing his affidavit and executing an agreement with the college administration of his own sweet will, had provided cheques of different nominations for its payment on different dates

First cheque given by the accused had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Cheque was issued to the complainant from whom the accused did not receive any amount rather the complainant was a special attorney

Complainant being special attorney alleged that accused owed him a sum of money and paid the cheque in question, which was dishonored on presentation

Executant/principle of power of attorney neither joined the investigation nor her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was available on record

No exact date and time span had been mentioned in FIR during which amount was handed over or transferred through bank transactions

Nowhere in record the purpose of sending money to the accused was reflected

Admittedly, the punishment provided under S. 489-F, P.P.C., was imprisonment for three years or fine or both

Civil litigation under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2, C.P.C., was pending between the parties relating to cheque in question

Involvement of huge amount did not enlarge the punitive scope of S. 489-F, P.P.C., and there was no ground for refusal of bail

Accused was not further required for investigation

Accused was a previous non-convict having no criminal antecedents

Post-arrest bail of accused was allowed in circumstances.

Accused claimed that he did not receive any money from the complainant, but this could be settled by the Trial Court after taking evidence

Since the maximum punishment for the offense under S. 489-F, P.P.C., was not more than three years, it did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was the norm in cases like this, and its denial was an exception, but the prosecution could not identify any exceptional circumstances

Accused had no prior convictions or record

Accused had been in jail since his arrest, and the police no longer required his presence for further investigation

Prosecution would not benefit from the accused's indefinite detention in jail

Bail was granted, in circumstances.