IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 717 OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 11.05.2023 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. 
No. 27358-B/2023) 
 
Zafar Nawaz 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Syed Muhammad Saqlain Rizvi, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Muhammad Asif, SI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
22.08.2023 
 
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 11.05.2023 passed by the learned 
Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 1155 dated 22.10.2021 under Section 489-F PPC at 
Police Station Samanabad, District Lahore, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that the petitioner was tenant of the complainant and did not pay 
rent for the period of one and half year. When the complainant demanded 
rent from the petitioner, he issued him a cheque amounting to 
Rs.16,50,000/- but the same was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank.  
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 
Criminal Petition No. 717/2023 
-: 2 :-
the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the cheque was not issued 
towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Contends that 
even if the claim of the complainant is believed, even then at the most he can 
file a case before the Rent Controller for recovery of the rent. Contends that 
the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months and his further 
incarceration would not serve any purpose. 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 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 other 
cases of similar nature have also been lodged against him, 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 petitioner was 
tenant of the complainant and allegedly did not pay rent for the period of 
one and half year. When the complainant demanded rent from the 
petitioner, he issued him a cheque amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- but the same 
was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. However, it is the stance of 
the petitioner that for the same claim, the complainant had lodged two more 
FIRs against the petitioner with an intent to extort money from him. It is 
further his stance that nothing is payable by him and the amount of the 
cheque in the present case is the bogus claim of the complainant. 
Admittedly, the petitioner was tenant of the complainant and prima facie any 
claim for recovery of rent falls within the domain of Rent Controller. In this 
view of the matter, the question whether the cheque was 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 petitioner is behind the bars for the 
last about six months. The maximum punishment provided under the statute 
Criminal Petition No. 717/2023 
-: 3 :-
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. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir Vs. The State 
(PLD 1995 SC 34). 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 
that other cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner 
is concerned, mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused 
does not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he has a prima facie 
case. Reliance is placed on Moundar and others Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 
934), Muhammad Rafiq Vs. State (1997 SCMR 412), Syeda Sumera Andaleeb 
Vs. The State (2021 SCMR 1227) & Nazir Ahmed @ Bhaga Vs. The State (2022 
SCMR 1467). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated 
above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within 
the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is 
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned 
Trial Court. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
22nd of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram