Muhammad Imran vs State

2012 Y L R 2748

[Peshawar]

Before Qaiser Rashid Khan, J

MUHAMMAD IMRAN---Petitioner

versus

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.112 of 2012, decided on 28th May, 2012.

(a)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, refusal of---Complainant had allegedly advanced an amount to the accused, who issued the cheque in question to return the amount---Said cheque was dishonoured by the bank for want of requisite amount in the account---Contentions of the accused were that the complainant had no written proof of advancing the amount to him; that offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., and that the investigation in the case was complete and the accused was no more required for the same purpose---Validity---Accused had not denied the existence of his bank account or the fact of issuing the cheque, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds--- Accused remained a fugitive from the law for a sufficiently long time after the occurrence, which showed his mala fide-Although the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C, but each case merited decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances and the accused could not be entitled to the concession of bail on this score alone---Material available on record prima facie connected the accused with the commission of the offence---Bail application of the accused was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum 2002 SCMR 442 and Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174 rel.

(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bail---Offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C---Right to bail---Rule---Scope---Grant of bail in such like cases was not a rule of universal application--- Each case merited decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum 2002 SCMR 442 and Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174 rel.

Burhan Latif Khaisori for Petitioner.

Sanaullah Shamim D.A.-G. for the State.

Ehsanul Haq Malik for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 28th May, 2012.

JUDGMENT

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Muhammad Imran, son of Ashiq Hussain, accused/petitioner, charged in case F.I.R. No.90 dated 30-1-2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C. of Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan, after the rejection of his applications for bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II D.I.Khan and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV D.I.Khan vide orders dated 24-4-2012 and 8-5-2012 respectively, has filed the instant application for the same relief.

2.According to the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Malik Muhammad Ramzan, he was on friendly terms with Muhammad Imran who owed him Rs.12,50,000. On demand, the accused/petitioner gave him, a Cheque bearing No. 318751 dated 28-11-2011 for an amount of Rs.12,50,000 of National Bank of Pakistan, main Branch D.I.Khan of his Account No.3272-8 in the presence of witnesses, namely, Sheikh Atiq-ur-Rahman and Ilahi Bakhsh. The said cheque was deposited on 29-11-2011 by the complainant in Habib Bank D.I.Khan in his account but subsequently it came to light that there was no amount in the said account of the accused/petitioner, hence F.I.R. ibid.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused/petitioner is a Government servant and there is every possibility that his service career would be endangered if he is not released on bail. He urged that though the complainant had allegedly advanced a huge amount of Rs.12,50,000 to the accused/petitioner, but there is no written proof in this respect on the record. He submitted that the offence in hand does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that investigation in the case is complete and the accused/ petitioner is no more required for the same; that the case is one of further inquiry and thus the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

4.On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate-General representing the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that he is directly charged by the complainant for committing the offence; that the cheque issued in favour of the complainant by the accused/petitioner was dishonoured

for want of the required amount and that the offence being of a heinous nature disentitles him to the concession of bail.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.Admittedly, the accused/petitioner had issued Cheque No. 318751 dated 28-11-2011 for a sum of Rs.12,50,000 in the name of the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan which was dishonoured by the National Bank of Pakistan, main Branch D.I.Khan for want of the requisite amount in his account. The record further shows that after the occurrence, the accused/ petitioner had remained fugitive from law for a sufficiently long and unexplained period which shows his mala fide in the occurrence. Except for evasive and bald assertions, there is no denial as such on the part of the petitioner regarding his account at National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch D.I.Khan in the first hand, and the issuance of cheque favouring the complainant on the other.

7.Though the offence for which the accused/petitioner is charged does not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C, but he cannot per se be held entitled to the concession of bail on this score alone. Grant of bail in like manner cases is not a rule of universal application. Each case merits decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Reliance in this respect may advantageously be placed on 2002 SCMR 442 (Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others) and 2009 SCMR 174 (Shameel Ahmed v. The State).

8.The issuance of cheques which are in turn dishonoured is the latest affliction which has crept into our society. If this tendency with its menacing speed goes unchecked, it would lead to the erosion of the trust among the ordinary people, which indeed is the hallmark of our social fabric. Moreover, no one is supposed to commit the financial murder of another member of the society.

9.Tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, connects the accused/petitioner with the commission of the offence. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Since the prosecution has already put in court complete challan of the case, therefore, the learned trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months positively after receipt of case file.

10.Any observations made in this order are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the mind of the learned trial Judge during trial.

MWA/238/P Bail dismissed.