livelawpk.com - SC dismissed Criminal Petition due to insufficient reasons

The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed by Delay of 35 days without Sufficient Reason for condonation of the delay; Pre-arrest Bail Application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

4 months, 2 weeks
255

Islamabad 05-08-2024: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition of petitioner / accused in a case involving the dishonoring of a cheque amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/-. The petition, which sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order denying pre-arrest bail, was rejected on the grounds of both limitation and merit.

The petitioner was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonored upon presentation. An inquiry confirmed that the petitioner had indeed issued the cheque. He claimed that he was falsely implicated by the complainant, alleging that a blank cheque was stolen from him and later filled in with the contested amount.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Amjad Farouk Bismil Rajput, contended that the case was fabricated with mala fide intentions. He argued that the cheque was stolen and that an FIR regarding the theft was registered in 2022.

Representing the state, Mr. Khurram Khan, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab, vehemently opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner attempted to defraud the complainant. The investigation into the theft claim revealed the FIR was false, solidifying the case against the petitioner.

Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, delivering the judgment, emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, granted only when there is clear evidence of mala fide intent by the complainant or the investigating agency. The Court referenced key case laws, including “Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State” (2015 SCMR 1394) and “Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State” (2020 SCMR 249), underscoring that pre-arrest bail is rooted in equity and meant to protect innocent citizens from misuse of legal processes.

The Court found no evidence of mala fide intent by the complainant and noted that the petitioner had not denied his signatures on the cheque. The evidence and inquiry supported the allegations against him, disqualifying him from the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Additionally, the Court noted that the petition was barred by a 35-day delay, and no sufficient reason was provided for condonation of the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on both limitation and merit grounds, denying leave to appeal. The Court reiterated that the Trial Court is free to adjudicate the case independently on its merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.

The decision underscores the strict criteria for granting pre-arrest bail and reinforces the importance of proving mala fide intent to avail such extraordinary relief.