IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 714 OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 04.05.2023 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad 
in Crl. Misc. No. 531-B/2023) 
 
Noman Khaliq 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Asad Mehmood Abbasi, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
In person 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Rifaqat Ali Khokhar, ASC as state counsel ICT 
Mr. Muhammad Ishaq, Inspector 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.08.2023 
 
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 04.05.2023 passed by 
the learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, with a prayer to grant post-
arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 372/15 dated 08.10.2015 under 
Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad, in the 
interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he 
had business relations with the complainant. The complainant gave an 
amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to the petitioner for doing business on the 
pretext that whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same 
with the complainant. Allegedly, the petitioner earned a profit of 
Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 
-: 2 :-
Rs.800,000/- and considering the half of the same to be of the 
complainant, the petitioner owed an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the 
complainant. The petitioner gave three cheques to the complainant for 
the said amount but they were 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 the 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 even if the claim of the complainant is believed, even then 
at the most he can file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. Contends 
that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five 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 assisted by 
complainant in person 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 08 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 petitioner and 
the complainant had business relations. The complainant gave an amount 
of Rs.29,00,000/- to the petitioner for doing business on the pretext that 
whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same with the 
complainant. Allegedly, the petitioner earned a profit of Rs.800,000/- and 
considering the half of the same to be of the complainant, the petitioner 
owed an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the complainant. The petitioner 
Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 
-: 3 :-
gave three cheques to the complainant for the said amount but they were 
dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. However, it is the stance of the 
petitioner that the cheques were not issued towards repayment of loan or 
fulfillment of an obligation and the same were issued in respect of the 
joint business. Admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant were in 
business relations. This Court in the case of Abdul Saboor Vs. The State 
(2022 SCMR 592) has categorically held that Section 489-F of PPC is not a 
provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of 
an alleged amount, rather for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings 
provide remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of CPC. In this view of the 
matter, 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 petitioner is behind the bars 
for the last about five months. 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. 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 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 case of the 
petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling 
for further inquiry into his guilt.  
Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 
-: 4 :-
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.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 
learned Trial Court. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
