Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 489-F ---- Dishonour of cheque issued by an advocate to his client for professional fees ---- Scope and applicability. Complainant, an advocate, lodged F.I.R. under S.489-F, P.P.C., against his client for dishonour of cheques allegedly issued towards payment of professional fee --- Question before the Court was whether a lawyer may initiate criminal proceedings against a client for failure to pay outstanding professional fees --- Held, that relationship between counsel and client is fiduciary in nature and founded on trust, confidentiality, and professional ethics --- Rule 155 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, and Article 9 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, prohibit advocates from disclosing privileged communications or converting professional disputes into criminal controversies --- Non-payment of legal fees, being a civil liability, cannot ordinarily attract penal consequences under S.489-F, P.P.C., unless dishonest intent (mens rea) is clearly established --- Section 489-F, P.P.C., is a safeguard against fraud, not an instrument for enforcing civil recoveries --- Recovery of unpaid fees lies within civil jurisdiction under S.73 of the Contract Act, 1872, and provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 --- Criminal process must not be used to compel or coerce payment of professional dues --- Reliance placed on 2023 SCMR 1948 and 2013 SCMR 51. (b) Professional Conduct ---- Advocate’s duties and limitations in disputes over fees ---- Rule 155, Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976; American Bar Association Model Code EC 2-23. Rule 155 mandates advocates to avoid controversies with clients over compensation and to resort to litigation only to prevent injustice, imposition, or fraud --- International professional ethics, including ABA Model Code EC 2-23, similarly enjoin that lawyers must resolve fee disputes amicably and refrain from suing clients except to prevent fraud --- The initiation of criminal complaints by lawyers against their clients for fee recovery violates the spirit of professional discipline, confidentiality, and dignity of the Bar --- Advocates are officers of the court and servants of the public interest; abuse of criminal process to pressurize clients erodes professional integrity and public confidence in the justice system. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) ---- Art.9 ---- Privileged communications between advocate and client ---- Extent of protection. Article 9 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, safeguards all communications made in confidence between advocate and client during professional engagement --- Disclosure of such communications or using them as basis for criminal prosecution is impermissible except in limited circumstances expressly provided in the proviso (communications made in furtherance of illegal purpose, or observations showing commission of a crime or fraud after commencement of employment) --- Filing of criminal complaints for fee recovery risks violation of professional privilege and fiduciary trust. (d) Administration of justice ---- Abuse of process ---- Misuse of criminal machinery by members of the Bar. Court took judicial notice of alarming increase in F.I.Rs. registered by advocates against their clients and others, as reflected in official AIGP Legal report submitted before Sindh High Court --- Such trend was held to impede efficient administration of justice and to threaten collapse of the judicial system if continued --- Lawyers using criminal process as a means of coercion in civil or fee-related disputes undermine both the nobility of their profession and public trust --- The credibility of the Bar rests on adherence to ethics, not on exertion of pressure through police or criminal law. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside; petitioner admitted to pre-arrest bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.200,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) —- S. 497 —- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F —- Post arrest bail —- Non-prohibitory clause —- Principles governing bail in non-prohibitory offences —- Scope. Accused was arrested in a case registered under S. 489-F PPC and his post-arrest bail was declined by the trial court and High Court. Supreme Court held that the offence alleged fell within the non-prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C., and as per settled law, bail in such cases is to be granted as a rule and refused only in exceptional circumstances. The Court reiterated that exceptions include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repetition of the offence. It was further held that the quantum of amount involved in a dishonoured cheque case cannot be treated as a valid ground for denial of bail, and that S. 489-F PPC is not a recovery provision but a penal one. Civil remedies for recovery are already provided under Order XXXVII CPC. Held, petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail; no exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the State to justify continued incarceration; allegation required further inquiry. Cited Cases: • Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others 2009 SCMR 1488 • Subhan Khan v. The State 2002 SCMR 1797 • Tariq Bashir and others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 • Raja Jafar Tariq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others 2011 SCMR 1708

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): **----S. 489-F—Dishonestly issuing a cheque—Loan repayment—Obligation—Conviction upheld with modification—Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 500,000/- allegedly to repay a loan, which was dishonoured on presentation—Trial Court convicted Petitioner under S. 489-F PPC and sentenced him to 1½ years of simple imprisonment with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C—Appellate Court reduced sentence to 1 year—Held, issuance of cheque as a guarantee or in fulfillment of an obligation falls within the scope of S. 489-F PPC—Dishonest intention inferred from dishonoured cheque and failure to repay—Petitioner’s plea that it was a business transaction or investment not substantiated by any documentary evidence—Prosecution discharged initial burden; burden shifted to accused who failed to rebut effectively—No illegality or irregularity found in impugned judgments—However, sentence reduced to period already undergone considering quantum involved. Cited Law: S. 489-F, Penal Code, 1860 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: **----Ss. 435, 439-A & 342—Scope of revisional jurisdiction—Criminal Revision Petition filed against concurrent findings of guilt by Trial and Appellate Courts—Held, revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluation of evidence unless material irregularity or manifest injustice is shown—No major contradiction or illegality found—Reduction of sentence justified considering cheque amount and period already undergone by convict. Cited Law: Ss. 435 & 439-A, Cr.P.C. **(c) Criminal trial—Principles of evidence—Onus—Admitted receipt of money and issuance of cheque—Defense plea of investment/guarantee unsupported by receipts or business documentation—In criminal trials, once prosecution proves issuance and dishonour of cheque in fulfillment of obligation, burden shifts to accused—Failure to discharge burden warrants conviction—Guarantee cheques also fall within the ambit of S. 489-F PPC. Disposition: Criminal revision petition partly allowed—Conviction under S. 489-F PPC maintained—Sentence reduced to period already undergone (since 18.10.2024) in view of mitigating circumstances and quantum of dishonoured cheque—Trial and Appellate Court judgments upheld otherwise. "Crl. Rev. against conviction in FIR No. 450/2017 dated 19.12.2017 U/s 489-F PPC P.S. Tarnol, Islamabad"

Summary: Blocking CNIC ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 9, 10-A, 15, 25 – Right to identity – Blockage of CNIC – Access to justice – Proclaimed offender stranded abroad – Constitutional safeguards – Scope The petitioner sought directions for unblocking the CNIC of his brother, Muhammad Luqman, who was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 950/2023 under S. 489-F PPC. Luqman, currently in Dubai, was unable to renew his expired passport due to NADRA’s digital impoundment of his CNIC, issued in compliance with an order of the Magistrate. Petitioner contended that a compromise had been effected with the complainant, and Luqman now intends to return and surrender before the court, but his return is obstructed by the CNIC blockage. Held, the right to identity is fundamental and its arbitrary restriction violates the individual’s right to liberty, access to justice, and freedom of movement under Articles 9, 10-A, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. A valid compromise deed was on record, evidencing amicable settlement between parties. Since the accused wished to return and join trial, continuation of CNIC blockage served no lawful purpose and impeded due process. Respondents were directed to forthwith unblock the CNIC to facilitate passport renewal and return to Pakistan. Cited as precedent: PLD 2022 Lahore 756 PLD 2022 Balochistan 73 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Disposition: Petition allowed; NADRA directed to unblock CNIC of Muhammad Luqman.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C) – S. 497 – Bail in bailable and non-prohibitory offences – Principle. Offence under Section 489-F PPC (dishonour of cheque) carries a maximum sentence of three years, hence falling in the second category of non-bailable offences (i.e., punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years) – As per settled principle laid down in Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception in such offences – No exceptional circumstances were shown by the prosecution or the complainant’s counsel to justify denial of bail. Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Muhammad Sarfraz v. The State (2014 SCMR 1032) Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Abdul Saboor v. The State (2022 SCMR 592) (b) Penal Code, 1860 – S. 489-F – Scope – Post-arrest bail – Dishonoured cheque – Prima facie business transaction – Civil proceedings pending – Relevance. Allegation against the petitioner was issuance of two cheques for Rs. 32,00,000/- and Rs. 500,000/-, the latter of which was dishonoured – Petitioner and complainant had prior business dealings under the name “Qarni & Haider Traders” – Bank statements evidenced commercial transactions – A civil suit was already pending for recovery – Whether the cheque was issued dishonestly or in discharge of a lawful obligation is a factual controversy to be determined by the trial Court upon evidence. Muhammad Anwar v. The State (2024 SCMR 1567) Abdul Rasheed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1948) (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII – Alternate remedy for recovery – Bail not to be denied due to pendency of civil liability. The civil nature of the dispute and existence of civil remedies under Order XXXVII CPC do not bar grant of bail – Involvement of large amount does not enhance penal consequences under Section 489-F PPC nor does it constitute a ground to refuse bail. Jehanzeb Khan v. The State (2020 SCMR 1268) (d) Criminal Law – Bail – Previous involvement in other cases – Effect. Mere registration of other FIRs against the petitioner does not disqualify him from bail if on merits he has a prima facie case – Bail cannot be refused solely based on past criminal record. Moundar v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934) Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412) Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State (2021 SCMR 1227) Nazir Ahmad alias Bhaga v. The State (2022 SCMR 1467) Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State (2024 SCMR 1596) (e) Post-arrest bail – Continued detention – When unjustified. Petitioner had been in custody since 22.01.2025 – Investigation already concluded and no further physical custody required by the police – Prolonged incarceration, in absence of necessity, amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible. ----Disposition: Post-arrest bail allowed. Petitioner admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Observations made are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice trial proceedings.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(5) — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395 — Pre-arrest bail — Cancellation of bail — Principles — Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents in case of alleged dacoity involving snatching of vehicle — FIR registered with delay of over four months — Delay remained unexplained — Record revealed a sale transaction of vehicle on the same date as alleged incident, evidenced by written deed — Dispute found to be civil in nature — Held, cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of bail, interference with investigation, or threat to prosecution witnesses — None of these factors present — Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless accused is found abusing concession — Petition dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 497(2), 497(5) — Bail, cancellation of — Further inquiry — Scope — Existence of civil transaction between parties — Documentary evidence showed vehicle in question had been sold to accused — Complainant failed to deny sale or explain FIR delay — FIR appeared to be retaliatory and cast serious doubt on prosecution’s version — Alleged offence required further inquiry — Where dispute appears civil in nature and no mala fide conduct is shown by accused, bail should not be cancelled. Rel. 2019 Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019 (Islam Ullah v. State) ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 489-F — Counter-FIR by accused — Impact — Accused had earlier lodged FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother — Fact of prior enmity and reciprocal litigation suggested mala fide — Held, previous animosity relevant for assessing credibility and motive behind delayed FIR — Strengthens case for bail confirmation and disfavors cancellation. Disposition: Petition under S. 497(5), Cr.P.C. dismissed. Pre-arrest bail confirmed earlier by Sessions Judge found justified. No misuse of bail or tampering with evidence shown.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395— —Pre-arrest bail—Cancellation of bail—Delay in lodging FIR—Disputed ownership—Further inquiry— Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused in a case under S.395, P.P.C., involving alleged snatching of a vehicle—Held, FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of over four months—Record revealed a sale deed executed between the parties on the date of alleged occurrence, evidencing a prior transaction concerning the disputed vehicle—Nature of dispute appeared to be civil, requiring further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail already granted by a court of competent jurisdiction could not be cancelled in absence of misuse or abuse of bail concession. Held, no grounds for cancellation of bail made out; petition dismissed. Cited Case: Islam Ullah v. The State, Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019, decided on 24.05.2019. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497(2) & 497(5)—Principles for bail cancellation—Scope— To recall bail granted by a competent court, strong grounds must exist, including interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or misuse of bail—None of these elements were established in the present case—Held, where prima facie the matter appears to be of civil nature and parties are engaged in counter-FIRs, criminal liability cannot be conclusively attributed at bail stage—Cancellation not justified. Principle: Bail once granted is not to be cancelled unless compelling reasons or clear abuse are shown. (c) Criminal Law—Robbery or ownership dispute—Nature of allegations—Effect— Allegation of vehicle snatching contradicted by existing sale deed showing transfer of vehicle—Accused lodged prior criminal complaint under S.489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother—Held, mutual allegations and counter-cases cast doubt on veracity of prosecution version—Presence of civil dispute weakens claim of criminal robbery—Further inquiry warranted. Held, matter requires adjudication after full evidence; no basis for cancelling pre-arrest bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in connection with FIR No. 2643/23, registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara. The FIR was filed by the complainant, who alleged that the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 1,139,000/- as "Qarze-Hasna" (interest-free loan) with a promise to repay by 14 September 2023. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 1,129,000/-, which was dishonored upon presentation at the bank. The petitioner delayed payment of the loan and sought pre-arrest bail, initially granted on an interim basis by this Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the disputed cheque issued by the petitioner with dishonest intent or as a guarantee for a business transaction? -----2- Did the petitioner act with ulterior motives to avoid repayment, or was the delay in payment part of a broader business dispute? -----3- Should the petitioner be granted pre-arrest bail based on the principle of further inquiry? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. The Court observed that the cheque was allegedly issued as a guarantee in the course of business dealings between the petitioner and the complainant, with no clear evidence of dishonest intent. The petitioner had already filed a suit for Rendition of Accounts against the complainant before the filing of the FIR. The Court concluded that the matter required further inquiry to establish the purpose of the cheque—whether it was issued to repay a loan or as a guarantee for a business transaction. The Court noted that there were grounds to suspect the complainant's motives in seeking the petitioner's arrest, potentially for causing humiliation and harassment. As the petitioner's guilt or innocence was yet to be determined at trial, and no clear evidence of malafide intent was presented, the Court ruled that pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. -----Citations/Precedents: Salman Mushtaq v. The State, 2024 SCMR 14 Ahtisham Ali v. The State, 2023 SCMR 975 Fahad Hussain v. The State, 2023 SCMR 364 Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State, 2020 SCMR 249 Muhammad Sadiq v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1394 Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique, PLD 2009 SC 427

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Maintainability---Alternative remedy---Petitions under Art. 199 for quashment of FIRs and orders under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope---Where statutory remedy of revision existed and no constitutional right was infringed, extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to circumvent the regular criminal process—However, Court examined legality as petitions were consolidated and involved identical legal questions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 561-A, 249-A & 403—Quashment of FIRs—Double jeopardy—Dishonoured cheques issued on different dates---Distinct transactions---Held, each dishonour arising from separate cheque constitutes a separate cause of action and distinct offence; multiple FIRs, each based on an independently dishonoured cheque, do not attract the bar of S. 403, Cr.P.C. or Art. 13 of the Constitution---Petitioner’s plea that subsequent FIRs were hit by double jeopardy was misconceived—No illegality in dismissal of S. 249-A applications by trial and revisional courts. Cited Cases: • *Saira Fatima v. The State* (2024 P Cr.LJ 1289) • *State v. Saeed Khan* (2021 P Cr.LJ 608) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 234—Joinder of charges—Dishonour of cheques within twelve months—Discretion of trial court---Where several offences of the same kind are alleged within one year, trial court may, on request, join them in a single trial to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 503 & 539-B—Recording of complainant’s statement through local commission---Legality---Where complainant’s physical appearance before court was impracticable due to health or security concerns, trial court may appoint an advocate-commissioner to record evidence at residence—No prejudice caused to accused if attendance is already dispensed with—Order modifying mode of recording evidence held lawful and within discretion of trial court. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 489-F—Dishonoured cheque—Successive prosecutions---Separate FIRs for distinct cheques dishonoured on different dates do not offend double jeopardy principles; each dishonour gives rise to a fresh and independent offence. (f) Criminal Justice—Quashment proceedings ----Jurisdiction under S. 561-A Cr.P.C.—Parameters—Only exercisable where continuation of proceedings is manifestly illegal, oppressive, or amounts to abuse of process—Mere existence of multiple FIRs for separate transactions or pendency of trial does not justify quashment. Disposition --- All petitions dismissed. Orders dated 20-07-2022 (refusing acquittal under S. 249-A), 15-10-2022 (revisional order), 10-06-2023 (appointment of local commission), and 26-08-2023 (revisional confirmation) upheld. Trial court directed to ensure police security during recording of complainant’s statement at his residence. No order as to costs.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 497(1), 497(2)---- Post-arrest bail—Offense not falling within the prohibitory clause—Principle of further inquiry. Petitioner was accused under S. 489-F, PPC for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs. 50 million to the complainant—Supreme Court noted that the maximum punishment for S. 489-F, PPC is three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC—Held that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail is a rule and refusal is an exception—Court reaffirmed that bail should only be denied in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances—Since the petitioner had been in custody since arrest and the prosecution failed to establish a strong prima facie case regarding dishonest intent, further inquiry into guilt was required—Bail was granted under S. 497(2), CrPC—Reliance placed on Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Nazir Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934), and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2022 SCMR 1467). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 489-F---- Dishonored cheques—Burden of proof—Essential elements for establishing criminal liability. Prosecution alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 50 million for repayment of business liability, which was dishonored upon presentation—Court observed that under S. 489-F, PPC, three foundational elements must be established: The cheque was issued dishonestly, It was issued for repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, and The cheque was dishonored. Supreme Court noted that the complainant failed to provide specific details of the business transaction, and no receipts or documentation were submitted for the alleged cash payments of Rs. 38.21 million—Court held that whether the cheque was issued in fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of S. 489-F, PPC is a factual question requiring evidence at trial—Pre-trial detention was deemed unnecessary. (c) Constitutional Law---- ----Art. 185(3)---- Supreme Court’s authority to rectify misapplications of legal principles in bail cases. Petitioner challenged the Islamabad High Court’s order denying post-arrest bail—Supreme Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to correct misapplications of the legal principles governing bail—Held that High Court failed to appreciate that in non-prohibitory offenses, bail should only be refused in exceptional circumstances—Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty and prevent unnecessary pre-trial detention—Reiterated that registration of multiple FIRs alone does not disentitle an accused from bail if a prima facie case is made out—Court discouraged the misuse of S. 489-F, PPC as a tool for pressuring accused in business disputes. (d) Bail Jurisprudence & Judicial Discretion---- ----S. 497(2), CrPC---- Principle of further inquiry—Bail granted on merits. Supreme Court found that the case required further inquiry into whether the cheque was issued dishonestly or merely as security for a business transaction—Petitioner had been in custody since arrest, investigation was complete, and the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of dishonest intent—Applying the principle of further inquiry under S. 497(2), CrPC, the Court granted post-arrest bail—Reliance placed on Moundar v. The State (1997 SCMR 412) and Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State (2021 SCMR 1227). Disposition: Petition converted into appeal—Islamabad High Court’s order set aside. Post-arrest bail granted subject to Rs. 100,000/- surety bond. Supreme Court reaffirmed that S. 489-F, PPC should not be misused in civil or business disputes. Trial Court directed to decide the case on merits, uninfluenced by bail observations.