IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 294-L OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 01.03.2023 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 
80579-B/2022) 
 
Abdul Rasheed 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Zubair 
Khalid, 
ASC 
a/w 
petitioner in person 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Murtaza Bilal, SI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
24.08.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under 
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the 
petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned 
Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 3420/2022 dated 21.10.2022 under Section 489-F PPC 
at Police Station Shadbagh, District Lahore, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he 
bought iron worth Rs.47,00,000/- from the complainant for which he gave two 
cheques amounting to Rs.500,000/- each to the complainant. However, when 
the cheques were presented to the Bank, they were dishonoured.   
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the 
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the 
Criminal Petition No. 294-L/2023 
-: 2 :-
actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the petitioner and the 
complainant were running a joint business and the cheques were not issued 
towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Contends that 
maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under 
Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the 
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner deserves to 
be granted bail. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned order declining bail 
to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has deprived the 
complainant of a huge amount and he remained absconder for 02 years, 
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the available record with their assistance.  
6. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the complainant was an 
iron merchant. The petitioner purchased iron worth Rs.47,00,000/- from the 
complainant and gave two cheques amounting to Rs.500,000/- each to him. 
However, when the cheques were presented to the Bank, they were 
dishonoured.  However, it is the stance of the petitioner that the petitioner 
and the complainant had started a business and the cheques in question were 
given as a guarantee and the same were not issued towards repayment of loan 
or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F PPC. The 
petitioner has placed on record a copy of the suit for rendition of accounts 
filed by him against the defendant before the Civil Court. A bare perusal of the 
same shows that the parties were probably running a business and the 
cheques were given as a surety and the same were not meant for 
enacashment. We have noted that the cheques in question are of the year 
2019 and according to the crime report the same were dishnoured in the year 
2019. If that be so, we are unable to understand as to why the complainant 
kept quite for three years and did not lodge the FIR on time. This prima facie 
supports the stance taken by the petitioner. Even otherwise, even if the 
complainant wants to recover his money, Section 489-F of PPC is not a 
Criminal Petition No. 294-L/2023 
-: 3 :-
provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an 
alleged amount. In view of the above, the question whether the cheques were 
issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the 
meaning of Section 489-F PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the 
learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. The maximum punishment 
provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three 
years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 
Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the 
prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. This Court in a number 
of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be 
taken away without exceptional foundations. We have been informed that all 
the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the 
petitioner is no more required for further investigation. So far as the argument 
of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the petitioner is concerned, 
it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence 
and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. 
Reliance is placed on Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 
477) & Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53). Taking 
into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the 
view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest 
bail.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into 
appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm the ad interim pre-
arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
24th of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram