Saddam Hussain vs State S — 2025 MLD 1634 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Saddam Hussain VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 18,50,000/- to the complainant and the same was dishonoured on presentation before concerned bank due to insufficient balance---From perusal of record it appeared that the present petitioner/accused was directly charged in the FIR with specific role of issuing cheque to the complainant which on presentation before the concerned Bank was declared bounced because of insufficient amount in his account---No possibility of the fake implication of the accused/petitioner or substitution existed because he was known to the complainant and transaction of vehicle between the parties was admitted---Although offence under S.489-F, P.P.C, did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but it was not universal rule of law that in each and every case which was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years imprisonment bail must be granted to the accused without considering the gravity of the offence---Besides involvement of the petitioner/accused in the present case, he had issued five more cheques to different persons which on presentation before the concerned Banks were declared bounced due to insufficient balance/amount in the account of the petitioner/accused---Accordingly five more cases under S.489-F, P.P.C, had been registered against the present petitioner/accused---Accused/petitioner though was not convicted in any of the said previous cases, but involvement of the petitioner/accused in five more cases of similar nature was sufficient to declare him habitual offender and apprehension existed that if he was released on bail he could repeat the offence and there also existed apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail---Petitioner/accused had deceived and deprived six persons/complainant from their huge amount, as such the petitioner/accused was not entitled for concession of bail---Petitioner/accused had not been able to make out the case for grant of post arrest bail in his favour---Hence, bail petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Saddam Hussain vs State S — 2025 MLD 1634 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD