In a case arising from a property deal gone wrong, the Sindh High Court's Mirpurkhas circuit (Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan) confirmed the pre-arrest bail of Muhammad Malook in Crime No. 107 of 2026, registered at Police Station Town Mirpurkhas, for an offence under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code — a cheque of Rs. 7,500,000 issued in a plot transaction that was dishonoured.
The interim pre-arrest bail granted on 11.09.2026 under section 498 Cr.P.C. was confirmed on the same terms, with the surety amount enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000 — a figure that reflects the size of the disputed cheque while keeping the applicant out of custody during trial.
The reasoning restates settled bail jurisprudence, and it is worth reading closely. First, section 489-F carries a maximum punishment of three years, which places it outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. — and where the prohibitory clause does not apply, bail is the rule, not the exception. Second, the nature and purpose of the dishonoured cheque were disputed between the parties and required evidence to resolve, making it a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Third, and most quotable: where post-arrest bail would be grantable, pre-arrest bail should not be refused merely to send the accused behind bars — the court cited Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427).
For practitioners, this is the precedent to cite in cheque-dishonour cases with a civil or commercial dispute underneath. A bounced cheque in a contested property transaction is not, by itself, a ticket to jail before trial. Zamanat qanoon ka usool hai, saza se pehle qaid exception — and this judgment says it again.