Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2010 YLR 3034

TAHAIR SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE

Citation2010 YLR 3034
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1013/B of 2010
Date2010-07-14
Judge(s)Hassan Raza Pasha
ResultBail refused

ORDER

' HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.

No,439 dated 21-8-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Murree District Rawalpindi.

2. Succinctly, the prosecution case as gleaned from the available record is that the complainant Naeem Ahmad Abbasi got lodged this F.I.R. By contending that the petitioner dishonestly issued two Cheques Nos.34047174 dated 31-3-2009 amounting to Rs. 200,000 and 34047173 dated 2-7- 2009 amounting to Rs.1500,000 in favour of the complainant to be drawn at Bank of Punjab Murree.

The complainant deposited the said Cheques in his account in Bank Al-Habib but ultimately the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, hence the instant case was registered against the accused/petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to mala fide of the complainant. It is submitted that actually there was a business between the parties and an agreement was executed between them on 13-10-2008, therefore, the cheques were given as guarantee, so the necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of 489-F, P.P.C., i,e, dishonestly issuance of cheque, repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation are not available in the case in hand, therefore, no case for dishonestly issuance of cheque is made out at all against the petitioner. He strenuously urged that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the cheques were issued dishonestly by the petitioner. According to learned counsel the issuance of cheques is admitted.

Learned counsel further argued that the challan has been submitted, charge has been framed and evidence of four prosecution witnesses has been recorded. Now the case is fixed for recording the statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. I have considered the arguments from both the sides and perused the record with care and caution.

6. The issuance of cheques by the petitioner to the complainant is admitted. The main stress of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the cheque was only issued as a guarantee. From the perusal of record reveals that it is nowhere mentioned in the cheques that the same were issued as security/guarantee. Suffice it to say that under the law deeper appreciation of evidence is not available at bail stage. Two cheques of huge amount were issued by the petitioner, who was fully aware of consequence of issuance of cheques, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to execute agreement mentioning that the same was being issued as a security/guarantee. The petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. Sufficient material is available on record to connect him with the commission of offence. Admittedly, the challan has been submitted in the trial Court, charge has been framed, evidence of four prosecution witnesses has already been recorded and now the case is fixed for recording the statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. No doubt ordinarily bail is granted as a rule in cases which are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., but it is settled law B by now that the Court may refuse the bail in the offence which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the version of both the parties in juxtaposition, I am of the firm opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail. Consequently, the bail petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to complete the trial within one month from today with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not affect the case of the either party on merit.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch