Refusal of Bail in 489-F is an exception

PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 769 Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, J. SAJJAD HAIDER--Petitioner versus STATE, etc.--Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 4327-B of 2013, decided on 22.4.2013. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--Offences u/S. 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S-497, Cr.P.C.--In such like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception--Exceptions mentioned in the said judgment are not available in the present case as petitioner was previously non-convict--His involvement in two other cases of same nature without any conviction is not sufficient to disentitle him from the concession of bail--Petitioner was behind the bars but his trial has not yet been concluded--He cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period in an offence, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Bail accepted. [P. 771] A PLD 1995 SC 34. Bail-- ----Where the case falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the concession of granting bail is to be favourably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases. [P. 771] B 2011 SCMR 1708 & 2009 SCMR 1488, ref. Shahzada Muhammad Zeeshan Mirza, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Akram Tahir, DDPP for State. Ms. Naila Riaz Chaudhry, Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 22.4.2013. Order Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Sajjad Haider seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 292-12 dated 15.11.2012 under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station Baigowala District Sialkot. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR is that petitioner issued a cheque valuing Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant but the same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had some business terms with the complainant and in lieu of that he had issued the cheque as security; that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. 4. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition while arguing that the petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount, hence, he is not entitle for the concession of bail. Learned DDPP after going through the record states that petitioner was earlier involved in two criminal cases under Section 489-F, PPC but concedes that he has not been convicted in those cases. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. According to the stance of the petitioner he issued the cheque as a guarantee/security, whereas, the claim of the complainant is that petitioner had issued the cheque in order to fulfill his obligation. This controversy would be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. The offence under Section 489-F, PPC is punishable with three years RI or with fine, meaning thereby that alternative sentence of fi