Muhammad Awais Qarni VS The State etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc.No.455 of 2025 Muhammad Awais Qarni Versus The State, etc.

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or order/ order/ counsel where necessary.

proceedings Proceedings 25.03.2025 Ch. Arslan Nawaz Marth, Advocate for the petitioner. Syed Wajid Ali Shah Gillani & Zahid Mahmood Raja Advocates with the complainant Mr. Adnan Ali DDPP for the State with Shakeel A.S.I.

C.M.No. 207 of 2025

This is an application seeking permission to place on record additional documents. For the reasons recorded therein, the instant C.M. is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.

Main case.

2.Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.25/2025 dated 08.01.2025, offence under Section 489-F PPC registered at Police Station Ramna, Islamabad.

3.As per crime report, the precise allegation against the petitioner is 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/-, which was presented in the bank for encashment but the same was dishonoured.

4.Heard. Record perused.

5.It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant being close friend of the petitioner gave him an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- as Qarz-e-Hasna, however, the petitioner in lieu of payment of loan issued two cheques, one of the cheque amounting to Rs.500,000/- was dishonoured when presented for encashment from the concerned Bank.

Record evinces that the petitioner was running a business in the name and style of “Qarni & Haider Traders” and bank statements of the petitioner from 01.01.2021 to 09.04.2024 indicates certain business transactions with the complainant and others. In such circumstances, whether the cheques in question were issued towards fulfillments of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F PPC is a question which would be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. Reliance is place on “Muhammad Anwar vs the State, etc” (2024 SCMR 1567) and “Abdul Rasheed vs the State, etc” (2023 SCMR 1948). The maximum punishment of offence provided under Section 489-F PPC is not more than imprisonment for three years or fine or both, as such, the same is not covered by the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In view of the dictum laid down in “Tariq Bashir & 5 others vs. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34), in non- bailable offences falling in 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 as well as the learned counsel for the complainant, as enumerated in the case of Tariq Bashir supra. Similar view was adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in another case titled “Muhammad Sarfraz v. The State and others” (2014 SCMR 1032). Further wisdom can be extracted from the cases titled “Muhammad Tanveer vs. The State” (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733) and “Abdul Saboor vs. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another” (2022 SCMR 592).

6.In Abdul Saboor case supra, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that for recovery of amount, civil proceedings provide remedies under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and in this

Crl.Misc.No. 455 of 2025 3

regard civil suit is pending adjudication between the parties before the Civil court. Moreover, involvement of a huge amount does not enlarge the punitive scope of Section 489-F PPC and is no ground for refusal of bail. Reliance in this regard can be placed on “Jehanzeb Khan vs. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others” (2020 SCMR 1268) wherein it was observed by the revered Supreme Court of Pakistan as infra: - “Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence complained is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar. Petitioner's continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment.”

7.As far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that the other cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner is concerned, it is trite that mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused does not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he has a prima facie case. Reliance is place on “Moundar and others vs the State” (PLD 1990 SC 934), “Muhammad Rafique vs The State” (1997 SCMR 412) “Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State, etc” (2021 SCMR 1227) “Nazir Ahmad alias Bhaga vs The State” (2022 SCMR 1467) and “Ali Anwar Paracha vs the State and another” (2024 SCMR 1596).

8.The petitioner is behind the bars since 22.01.2025 and his physical custody is no more required to 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.

9.In view of above discussion, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of

Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature, which shall have no bearing effect on the merits of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial.

(Acting Chief Justice)

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(Acting Chief Justice)

ARSHAH”