IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 495 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 50990-
B/2020) 
 
Syeda Sumera Andleeb 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Mazhar Iqbal Sindhu, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
 
Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sindhu, Addl. P.G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Asif Raza, S.I. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
07.06.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 266 dated 19.02.2020 under Section 489-F 
PPC at Police Station Sattokatla, Lahore. The same relief was denied 
to her by the learned Trial Court as also by the High Court vide 
impugned order.  
2. 
 
As per contents of the crime report, the petitioner and 
her husband took loan of rupees twenty million from the 
complainant in the presence of witnesses and towards the discharge 
of the liability, they gave the complainant a cheque amounting to 
Rs.50,00,000/-, which belonged to an account which was being 
jointly maintained by the petitioner and her husband. When the 
complainant did not get back the amount lent, he deposited the 
cheque in his account but the same was dishonored.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended 
that the petitioner has no concern with the case as she was just 
maintaining a joint account with her husband; that her husband, 
who is the main accused, is still at large; that she is a lady and has 
Criminal Petition No. 495/2021 
2
to look after her three children, one of which is a minor girl aged 
about 5 years; that the only reason on which the cheque was 
dishonored was that the signatures over the cheque do not match 
with the specimen signature; that the offence does not fall within the 
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and that in the given 
circumstances, the petitioner deserves concession of bail in the 
interest of safe administration of justice.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the 
contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He while 
supporting the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner 
contended that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases of 
similar nature, which shows that she is an habitual offender; that 
the petitioner along with her husband, in furtherance of their 
common intention, had intentionally deprived the complainant from a 
huge amount and as such she does not deserve any leniency by this 
Court.  
5. 
 
Arguments heard. Record perused.  
 
 
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was 
maintaining a joint account with her husband, who is fugitive from 
law. The petitioner was taken into custody by the local police and 
she is behind the bars for the last 11 months without 
commencement of trial. The maximum punishment provided under 
the statute is 3 years. It has been surfaced on the record that the 
signature over the cheque mismatched with the specimen signature, 
which ultimately dishonored. So far as the argument of learned Law 
Officer that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases of similar 
nature is concerned, mere registration of criminal cases does not 
deprive a person from grant of bail, if he/she is otherwise entitled 
for the same relief. In Muhammad Rafiq Vs. State (1997 SCMR 412), 
this Court has candidly held that if an accused is involved in a 
number of cases, it is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. 
Same was the view of this Court in Moundar Vs. The State (PLD 
1990 SC 934). Even otherwise, the petitioner is a woman folk and 
has three children to look after including a child of 5 years of age. 
The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 
Cr.P.C.  
Criminal Petition No. 495/2021 
3
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has 
made out a case for bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into 
appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is 
admitted to bail, subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million) with one surety in the like 
amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
7th of June, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram