No one shall be allowed to commit financial murder of another person

PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 686 [D.I. Khan Bench] Present: Qaiser Rashid Khan, J. MUHAMMAD IMRAN--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl. M.B. No. 112 of 2012, decided on 28.5.2012. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F--Bail--Dismissal of--Dishonoured of cheque--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--Tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, connects the accused/petitioner with the commission of the offence--The application was therefore, dismissed--Since the prosecution had already put in Court complete challan of the case, therefore, the trial judge is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within; four months positively after receipt of case file. [P. 688] B & C Bail-- ----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. [P. 688] A 2002 SCMR 442 & 2009 SCMR 174, ref. Mr. Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Sanaullah Shamim, DAG for State. Mr. Ehsanul Haq Malik, Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 28.5.2012. Judgment Muhammad Imran, son of Ashiq Hussain, accused/petitioner, charged in case FIR No. 90 dated 30-1-2012 under Section 489-F, PPC 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 FIR 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 FIR 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 malafide 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 Vs. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others) and 2009 SCMR 174 (Shameel Ahmed Vs. 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. (A.S.) Bail dismissed