This is a petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. by Shoaib Sohail petitioner seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No. 869 dated 23.9.2020 registered at Police Station Cantt, Multan for the offence under Section 489-F , PPC.
Earlier applications of the petitioner for the same relief were dismissed by learned trial Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 03.05.2021 and 06.05.2021, respectively .
2. Precisely allegation against the petition er is that he issued a cheque amounting of Rs. 83,31,871/- in favour of the complainant and same was dishonoured on its presentation before the concerned bank.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General remained unable to hint out even a single circumstance whereby case of the accused/petitioner may fall within the purview of exceptions in view of the dicta laid down in case titled "Tarig Bashir v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34) to decline the relief of post arrest bail to the accused/petitioner . It is by now a settled principle of law that where the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause grant of bail in such like cases is rule and refusal is an exception. Apart, if a person, otherwise is found entitled to the concession of bail, his liberty cannot be curtailed on the ground of the charge being of heavy amount. By now it is settled principle of law that nobo dy can be detained by way of punishment when his person is no more required by police and his further detention would serve no useful purpose for prosecution except for some personal grudge of the complainant. Apex Court has reaffirmed dicta laid/down in above referred case law in case "Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another" (PLD 2017 SC 733) in the following terms: "In the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) this Court has taken notice of stock of prevailing circumstances where under -trial prisoners ore tent to judicial lock-up without releasing them on bail in non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years. It was held that "bail in such offences shall not be refused. "This Court took further pains by reproducing the entire provision of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and further held that "grant of bail in such offences is a rule and refusal shall be an exception, for which cogent and convincing reasons should be recorded. " While elaborating exceptions, albeit it was mentioned by this Court that if there is a danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail, then grant of bail may be refused like the two Courts below in this case have held but it was further elaborated that such opinion of the Court shall not be founded on mere apprehension and self assumed factors but the same must be supported by cogent reasons and material available on record and not to be based on surmises and artificial or weak premise."
While taking note of deteriorating condition of the under-trial prisoners in the jail, Apex Court further observed as under: "It is settled principle of law that once the Legislature has conferred discretion on the Court to exercise jurisdiction in particular category of offences without placing any prohibition on such discretion then, the Court shall not import to the provision of law , reasons or factors alien thereto and not specifically mentioned in the Statute.
Today very prison is accommodating convicted and under -trial prisoners more than double of its capacity and allied facilities besides the State authorities are involved on daily basis in transporting such under -trial prisoners from the prisons to the Court premises on every date of hearing, involving risk and extra expenditure from the public exchequer while on the other hand the dependent family members, especially the school going children of the under -trial prisoners charged for such offences are left without proper care and supervision of the father or mother when their parents are sent to jail, therefore, their academic career is always at stake and they are tempted and persuaded to indulge in unsocial or anti-social activities ultimately landing them in the field of crimes, which is not good for the society at large."
It is high time that the Courts of first insta nce should exercise the discretion qua grant of bail in cases that are not covered under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C. in the light of guidance given by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above hinted celebrated judgments.
5. The upshot of above discussion is that the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.