Nasir Iqbal VS The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWARHIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(ludicial Department) Cr.M.BA. No. 443-M/2017.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 25.10.2017.

Petitioner: - (Nssir Iubul) bv Mr. Sneed Ahmad, Advocute.

Respondents:- (the Stote & I snotheil bv Muluk Sarwur Khun, State counsel und Barrister Dr. Adnsn Khan Advocate. MOIIAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN J.- This petition pertains to Cr. M B.A. 443-M of 2011 preferred by accused,Petitioner Nasir Iqbal being implicated in case FIR No. 452 dated 04.05.2017 charged under sections 489-F, 420 PPC registered at Police Station Matta District Swat and is looking for the grant of bail after arrest.

2 The Petitioner earlier tried his luck for the similar relief before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Qazi Matta Swat r- il).- through bail application No. 14214 of the year 2017, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.07.2011 . Next off, the matter was taken up Nawab (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Juslice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan

before the Court of learned lzafi. Zila QazilAdditional Sessions Judge Matta Swat via B.A. No. 228/4 of the year 2017, where too the wheel of fortune did not favour the Petitioner and the application stood dismissed.

3 At first instance, the applicant- complainant presented an application to the leamed Sub-Divisional Police Officer Matta Circle Swat that the accused/Petitioner had issued him cheque No. 08242748 for an amount of Rs. 20 lac of the United Bank Limited Tehsil Matta Branch on account of sale of his personal vehicle by the type of TZ NCP Model 2004. The said cheque when presented for encashment in the Bank concemed was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accusedlPetitioner. In view whereot an inquiry was initiated which culminated into FIR ibid registered against the accused/Petitioner.

I). 4. Having heard arguments of learned d^ counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Astt: Advocate General for the State, record with their assistance gone through.

Nawab (S.B.) I lon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan

J

5.It appears from the record that though the accused/Petitioner has been directly charged for issuance of bogus cheque with dishonest intention by the complainant and was mainly refused bail on the pretext being previously involved in alike offences, but bare perusal of the record would reveal that the cheque ln question has been issued to the complainant in respect of sale of his personal vehicle, thus, the matter in between the parties appears to be civil in nature. Moreover the offence under which the accused/Petitioner stood nominated as an accused entails maximum punishment up to 3 years, thereby does not fall within the restrictive limbs of section 491 (1) Cr.P.C and in such like cases grant of bail is rule and refusal thereof is an exception. This principle of law has been I a- enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case law cited as 20ll SCMR 1708 " Riaz Jafsr Na tis vs Muhummad Nadeem Da r snd others" , wherein the relevant citation speaks off:-

Nawab (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad lbrahim Khan

" Thus keeping in view the law luid down in the case of Zafur Iqbal V. Muhummud Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488) ordaining that granting bail must be favourably considered und should only be declined in exceptional cases.

6 Above all, the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2011has altogether formed a distinct view that for the offence when an accused has been charged does not attract the prohibitory clause, there can be no strong reason to withhold the concession of bail, as grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.

7 In view of the above observations which are, of course purely tentative in nature, the Petitioner is entitled to the concession of {' bail. Hence he is asked to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000i- (Rupees ten lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, who shall Nawab (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan

ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

8 These are the reasons of my short

order ofeven date.

ll,-/-- Announced c- Dt:25.10.2017. JUDGE

Yl[[

Na\.!ab (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad lbrahim Khan