This is post-arrest bail petition by accused-petitioner (Muhammad Ahmad) in F.I.R. No. 314, dated 18.07.2019, under Section 489-F P .P.C. Police Station Golra Shareef, Islamabad.
2. According to the allegations, set-forth in the F.I.R, complainant booked a vehicle on lease through a leasing company namely "Apna Wheels" by paying down payment to the tune of Rs. 423,800/- but the latter failed to abide by its commitment and for return of amount, issued cheque of the same denomination which, on presentation, stood dishonoured by the concerned bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R; that original cheque is not part of record rather its photocopy has been annexed; that it was a guarantee cheque; that parties have been in business terms; that the cheque was issued by the company which evades exclusive criminal liability of the petitioner; that the complainant has refus ed to take vehicle as per commitment; that petitioner is behind the bars since arrest i.e. 18.05.2020 and not a single witness has yet been examined; that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and that bail cannot be withheld as punishment, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. Learned counsel relied upon case laws reported as 2014 SCMR 1032 , 2013 PSC(Crl) 12 (SC), 2011 SCMR 1708 , 2019 YLR 2125, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1, PLD 2013 Lahore 173,PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 203, 2013 P.Cr.L.J 1591, 2010 YLR 1177 (Lahore) and 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 1760 (Lahore).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the original cheque is with the complainant who is an aged person of 66 years and had been deprived of hard-earned money; that complainant is not a regular customer of the company; that trial is in progress, therefore, direction may be issued for early decision of the case as in case of release, there is apprehension of escape as the petitioner had been keeping himself away from the process of law, remained proclaimed offender and involved in 5 other cases of like nature, therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel placed reliance upon case laws reported as 2009 SCMR 174, 2007 YLR 347 (Lahore), 2016 YLR 1002 , 2008 YLR 338 (Sindh), 2018 MLD 273 (Peshawar) and 2018 MLD 1521 (Sindh).
5. Learned State Counsel argued that photocopy of the cheque in question alongwith dishonour slip has already been taken into possession through recovery memo and that the trial is in progress.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. Admittedly , petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than ten and half months in an offence which entails punishment up to three years, does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. No improvement in the investigation is expected if petitioner remains in jail. Guidance is sought from the recent judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Jehanzeb Khan v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhawa and others" ( 2020 SCMR 1268 ), wherein it is held that:- "Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence complained is punishable for three years imprisonment or fine or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar. Petitioners continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigation process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment." (Emphasis added)
8. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case reported reported as "Riaz Jafar Natiq v, Muhammad Nadee m Dar"
(2011 SCMR 1708 ), allowed bail in a case where the allegation against the accused was that he issued cheque of Rs. 20 Million which on presentation was dishonoured (while in the case in hand, amount of dishonoured cheque is Rs.4,23,800/-). The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and the concession of grant of bail must be favourably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases.
9. Moreover , in case laws reported as "Anees Ahmad Khan v, State" (2020 P.Cr.LJ Islamabad 268) and "Khurram Shahzad v, State"(2020 P Cr.LJ Islamabad 392) it is held that maximum punishment for the offence under section 489-F PPC is three years which does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C; person of the petitioner was not required for further investigation; in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and that the bail could not be withheld as a measure of punishment.
10. In the present case, investigation has already been completed. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 18.05.2020 and is behind the bars since then. The circumstances of the present case warrant exercise of discretion as the bail cannot be withheld as of punishment. Reliance is placed upon "Manzoor and 4 others v. The State"
(PLD 1972 Supreme Court 81) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:- "It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reason able grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity . The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run."
11. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant have no relevance in the matter in the light of case law referred in supra paras.
12. In view of above, instant bail petition is allowed , petitioner (Muhammad Ahmad) is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifthy thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
13. Needless to mention that this is tentative assessment for the purpose of this petition only, which shall not affect/influence trial of this case in any manner . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.