Bail can't be withheld if business transactions are admitted

PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 994

Present: Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.

Khawaja MATEEN YOUSAF--Petitioner

versus

STATE & another--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 13843-B of 2013, decided on 25.10.2013.

Bail--

----Business relationship--It is a settled law that where business transactions are admitted, bail is not to be withheld. [P. 996] A

2005 P.Cr.LJ 677, ref.

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

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--Sentence does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C.--In cases not punishable with death, transportation of life or 10 years imprisonment, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception--Petitioner was previous non-convict and behind the bars--As far as his involvement in six other cases, the same were registered at the instance of business partners of the petitioner/complainant--Even otherwise, he has also been granted bail in the aforesaid cases--Investigation was completed, his corpus was no more required by police for further investigation--Bail accepted.         [P. 996] B, C, D & E

PLD 1995 SC 34, 2009 SCMR 1488 & 2011 SCMR 1708, ref.

Mr. Faiz Rasool Khan Jalbani, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Mr. Rizwan Majeed, complainant in Person.

Date of hearing: 25.10.2013.

Order

Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No.241, dated 01.08.2013, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Gujranwala.

2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that he obtained an amount of Rs.64,80,000/- from the complainant for business purposes, but thereafter he did not pay any profit to him, however subsequently returned certain amount and also issued seven cheques for return of the remaining amount and one cheque Bearing No.1400728 when presented before the bank was dishonoured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives. Learned counsel further submits that in view of admitted business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, provisions of Section 489-F, PPC, are not attracted. It is argued that the cheque worth Rs.300,000/- has been dishonoured in the instant case. Learned counsel submits that civil dispute between the parties has been culminated into criminal liability by the complainant. It is contended that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is also involved in six other cases of similar nature, but the same were also lodged by the business partners of the petitioner/complainant. Adds that the petitioner has already been admitted to bail in all the aforesaid cases. It is argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this petition with vehemence with the contentions that the petitioner is named in the FIR. Learned Deputy Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has deprived the complainant from an amount of Rs.300,000/- in the instant case by way of issuing cheque without having sufficient funds. It is submitted that the petitioner is also involved in six other cases of similar nature. In such circumstances, it is contended, that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.

6. Though the petitioner is named in the FIR, however, however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. Bare perusal of FIR reveals that there was a business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. In such like cases it is a settled law that where business transactions are admitted, bail is not to be withheld. Reference in this regard can be made to the dictum of law reported as Muhammad Akbar Vs. The State (2005 P.Crl.L.J. 677).

7. Moreover, there is no denial to the fact that the sentence of offence with which the petitioner is charged is 3 years, which does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. and as has been held in the case of Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), in cases not punishable with death, transportation of life or 10 years' imprisonment, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Moreover, in the case of Zafar lqbal Versus Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:--

"----Ss. 497 & 498--Bail--Principles--Courts in cases, where offence falls within non prohibitory Clause of S. 497, consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in exceptional, cases--As far as exceptional circumstances are concerned those are to be taken into consideration depending upon each case".

Similar view was affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Riaz Jafar Natiq Vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708). The petitioner is stated to be previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest. As far as his involvement in six other cases is concerned, learned Deputy Prosecutor General frankly conceded that the same were registered at the instance of business partners of the petitioner/complainant. Even otherwise, he has also been granted bail in the aforesaid cases. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation.

8. For the foregoing reasons I am persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.S.)   Bail accepted