ORDER SHEET
----------------------------------------------------
Date Order with
signature of Judge
----------------------------------------------------
FOR HEARING.
------------
28.05.2009
----------
Mr. Ashiq Muhammad,
advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman
Awan, advocate for the State.
*******
This bail
application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. moved by applicant Naveed Ahmed in
F.I.R. No.215/2008 of Police Station Model Colony. The accused has been charged
with the offences under Sections 489-F, 420, 506, 471, PPC.
In essence, the
accused has been arrested and taken into custody for the offence of bouncing
cheques. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that bail should
be granted to the applicant as this case does not fall within the prohibitory
clause of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and that in fact the applicant is innocent
and it is the complainant, who has committed fraud with him.
Learned counsel for
the State vehemently opposes the grant of bail. He maintains that the
complainant is an innocent lady, who has been cheated by the accused and that
he has even sworn an affidavit admitting that he owes money in question. He has
placed reliance on the case of 2009 S.C.M.R. 177, which in essence lays down
the principle that though generally as
a rule bail is to be granted in the cases which do not fall within the purview
of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case, bail can be denied.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
State Counsel, reviewed the documents on file and have also carefully examined
the legal authorities.
The offences for
which the accused has been charged, the maximum punishment is only 3 years. The
accused has already spent seven and half months in jail. No charge has yet been
framed against him. There has also been delay in lodging the F.I.R. According
to PLD 1995 SC 34, the cases which carry the penalty less than 10 years the bail
should not be denied in such cases. This authority has not been contradicted by
2009 S.C.M.R. 177, which has merely confirmed that the grant of bail where
penalty is less than 10 years is not an absolute and that much will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. This authority 2009 S.C.M.R. 177 is
distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case because in
that case the applicant was found to be involved in three previous cases of
similar kind and found to be habitual offender of issuing cheques and
defrauding people. In the instant case, the accused is the first time offender.
Based on the above discussion, I hereby
admit the applicant/accused on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.