IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL  
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1384 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 25.10.2021 passed 
by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.MBA No. 
3012-P/2021) 
 
 
Abdul Saboor 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State through A.G. KPK and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Riasat Ali Gondal, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Abdul Fayyaz Khan, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl. A.G. 
Mr. Ziaullah, I.O 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
25.01.2022 
 
ORDER 
 
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 
25.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 678 dated 19.08.2020 under Section 489-F 
PPC at Police Station University Town, Peshawar, in the interest of 
safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is 
that to settle some business related transactions, he issued a 
cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000,00/- to the complainant, which 
was dishonored when presented 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 the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that 
Criminal Petition No. 1384/2021 
-: 2 :-
the cheque in question was given as a security, which was 
dishonestly presented to the Bank. Contends that the dispute 
regarding payments is a business dispute between the parties, 
which involves a factual controversy and the same is to be 
determined during trial proceedings. Contends that the petitioner is 
behind the bars for the last six and half months and his further 
incarceration would not serve any purpose to the prosecution. 
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. and 
grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by 
learned counsel for the complainant defended the impugned order 
whereby post-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner. They 
contended that the petitioner did not deny the signatures on the 
cheque and he has deprived the complainant of a huge amount, 
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their assistance.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner 
was running a business of poultry; he borrowed some amount from 
the complainant and to settle the same, he issued the cheque in 
question to the complainant, which has been dishonored. It is an 
admitted position that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 
six and half months whereas the maximum punishment provided 
under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three 
years and the offence 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 Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State and 
another (PLD 2017 S.C 733) has held that “once this Court has held 
in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within 
the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and 
refusal shall be an exception then the Courts of the country should 
follow this principle in its letter and spirit because principles of law 
enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts 
Criminal Petition No. 1384/2021 
-: 3 :-
throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and Special 
Courts.” Prima facie Section 489-F of PPC is not a provision which is 
intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged 
amount. It is only to determine the guilt of a criminal act and award 
of a sentence, fine or both as provided under Section 489-F PPC. On 
the other hand, for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings provide 
remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of CPC. At this stage, only 
a tentative assessment of the matter is required and we cannot 
presume dishonesty on the part of the petitioner as any such 
determination would prejudice his right to a fair trial guaranteed by 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Liberty of a 
person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without 
exceptional foundations. The law is very liberal especially when it is 
salutary principle of law that the offences which do not fall within 
the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule while its refusal is 
mere an exception. By following the aforesaid principle and 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.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 
25.10.2021. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his 
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety 
in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
25th of January, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram  
