Naqib Ullah Vs The State etc

JUDGMENT STIEET

IN THE PESHAWAR IIIGH COURT,

BANI\UBENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr: Misc: BA No. 572-8 12025

Naqib Ullah Khan.

Versus The State etc:

JUDGMENT

Dateofhearing 18.12.2025.

For petitioner: Mr.Kamran Marwat, advocate.

For the State: Mr.Muhammad Ilyas Khan State Counsel.

For respondent: Mr. Abdul Nasir, advocate.

**{r***lc

ABDAL FAYAZ.J.-

1 Instant is a bail application ofpetitioner Naqib Ullah Khan s/o Gd Zard Ali Khan r/o Bahader Khan Surani, Tehsil and District Bannu, who is seeking his post-arrest bail in connection $ with case F.I.R No.53 I dated 06. I 1.2025 uls 489-F P.P.C, Police Station, Township, District Bannu, after he was declined similar relief by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu vide order dated 26.11.2025.

2.Briefly stated, on an application moved by the complainant, Muhammad Ibrahim, an inqurry regarding the issuance and dishonour ofa cheque was conducted by the local police ofPolice Station Township, Bannu. Upon completion of the said inquiry and after obtaining legal opinion from the competent quarter, the present case wtlsi registered.

3.The case of the complainant is that he enjoyed cordial and friendly relations with the petitioner, Naqib Ultah, and in furtherance thereof, the complainant allegedly advanced an amount of Rs. 24,210,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Forty-Two Lacs and Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner on 28.06.2025 for the purchase of four vehicles' To formalize the transaction, a written agreement was executed on a stamp paper on the same date' It is further alleged that in discharge of his obligation under the said agreement, the petitioner handed over a cheque bearing No. 1963423496, drawn on MCB Bank, with the mutual understanding that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to repay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period of two months, i.e, by 28'08'2025, the

J

complainant would be at liberly to present the said cheque for encashment. However, upon presentation of the cheque before the concemed bank, the same was returned unpaid due to insufftcient fund. Consequently, on the report of the complainant, the instant case came to be registered.

4.Arguments of leamed counsel for

petitioner and learned counsel for complainant assisted by the leamed AAG for the State heard and record perused.

5.After hearing leamed counsel for the parties and without entering into a deeper appreciation of the merits of the case, it prima facie transpires that the offence alleged under Section 489-F P.P.C. carries a ma)dmum punishment of three years' imprisonment and, therefore, does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(l) Cr'P.C. In such category of offences, the grant of bail is a rule, whereas its refusal is an exception. This settled principle has been consistently expounded by the superior Courts in a plethora of judgments' In the case of "lehanzeb Khan V. The State through Additional

Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" 12020 SCMR 12631 and "Tariq Bashir and 05 others V.

The State" [PLD 1995 SC 341, the august Supreme Court has categorically held that "bail in cases not falling wtthin the prohibitory clause will be decltned/refused only in extraordinary and exc epti onal c ir c ums t anc e s " Likewise, in the case "Muhammod Tanveer Vs The State and another" IPLD 2017 SC 7331, the august Supreme Court observed as under:-

"6. We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is { refused on Jlimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, ParticularlY accused persons charged for such ffinces are unnecessarilY burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions. This phenomenon is growing ffemendously, thus, cannot be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court ,s wasted in disPosal of such petitions. This Court is PurelY a constitutional Court to deal with intricate questions of latY and Constitution and to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where la,o Points require interpretation."

v Similarly, in the case of "Rao Ghulam Mustafo V. The State and another" 12023 P.Cr.L.J 4991, in an identical matter, it has been held as under:-

"6. The maximum punishment of offence provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. is not more than imprisonment for three Years or fine or both, as such, the same is not covered by the Prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of the dictum laid down in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State - PLD 1995 SC 34, in non-bailable offences falling tn the second category i.e. Punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an excePtion. No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out bY the learned prosecutor os well as the learned counsel for the comPlainant, as c enumerated in Tariq Bashir suPra. Further wisdom can be extracted from the cases titled Muhammad Tanveer v. The State - PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733 and Abdul Saboor v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another -

2022 SCMR 592. "

6.In view of the foregoing legal position, there remains no cavil that the offence under Section 489-F P.P.C. does not fatt within the prohibitory clause of Section a97Q) Cr'P'C, and, in ordinary circumstances, an accused alleged to have issued a cheque which has subsequently been dishonoured-whether on account of insufficient

funds or otherwise-is entitled to the concession of bail.

7.Leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount in question was advanced as an investment or share in a business venture and that the cheque was issued in connection with the said business transaction. It is argued that the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the time of issuance of the cheque is conspicuously absent, as the cheque was neither issued dishonestly nor with the intent to defraud the complainant, but was merely furnished as a cheque. In these

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 nature and purpose of the cheque in question. This aspect,primafacie, renders the case of the petitioner one of further inqurry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

8.For the reasons recorded above, the instant bail petition is allowed and the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his

fumishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) with trvo sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/\ttOD concerned. The sureties shall be local, reliable, and men of means.

Announced.

*Imranullah PS* -Sd- Judge{

JADGE

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

f/