# A bounced cheque does not mean no bail. > Dishonestly issuing a cheque under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code carries at most three years. In August 2025 the Supreme Court said that for such an offence bail is the rule and refusal the exception, that the size of the cheque is not a reason to refuse it, and that 489-F is not a way to recover money. - Topic: Criminal law - Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan - Citation: 2025 SCMR 1955 - The myth: "A bounced cheque means no bail." Verdict: Wrong. - Watch: https://failegal.site/media/bail489 (video https://failegal.site/media/bail489/reel.mp4, 0:47) - Published by FAI Legal on 2026-10-10 In business and family money disputes, a dishonoured cheque often turns into a criminal case under section 489-F. Many people on both sides believe that once the case is registered, the accused will stay in jail until he pays. This matters to anyone accused in a cheque case, to anyone holding a cheque that bounced, and to lawyers advising either side on bail and recovery. ## Key points - Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code: dishonestly issuing a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation that is dishonoured is punishable "with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both". - The Supreme Court in 2025 SCMR 1955: the offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so bail has to be considered favourably as a rule, and may be declined only in exceptional cases. - Exceptional cases include the likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with the prosecution evidence, or the danger of the offence being repeated. - The amount of the cheque cannot be treated as an exception, and 489-F is not meant for recovering money: the law provides recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ## The rule in one line A 489-F case is a criminal case with a maximum of three years. For an offence like this, bail is the rule and refusal the exception, however large the cheque. Bail is never automatic: the court decides, and it can refuse in exceptional cases. To get the money back, the law gives a civil suit. ## What happened in this case The accused was named in a crime report registered on 28 March 2023 at a police station in Islamabad for an offence under section 489-F. He was arrested on 23 January 2025 (paragraph 1). The trial court refused him post arrest bail on 26 March 2025, and the Islamabad High Court dismissed his bail application on 9 May 2025. He petitioned the Supreme Court (paragraph 1). ## What the Supreme Court said A bench of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi decided the petition on 12 August 2025, in an order by Justice Athar Minallah. The offence under section 489-F is, admittedly, in the category that falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497. In such offences bail has to be considered favourably as a rule, but may be declined in exceptional cases, which include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with the prosecution evidence, and the danger of the offence being repeated (paragraph 3). "The quantum of amount involved in a case registered under section 489-F cannot be treated as an exception" to that rule. Section 489-F "is not a provision which is intended by the legislature to be used for recovery of the alleged amount": criminal proceedings determine guilt and sentence, and the legislature has set out the framework for recovering the amount of a dishonoured cheque under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (paragraph 3). The State had not shown exceptional circumstances, and whether the offence was even made out needed further probe. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and he was granted post arrest bail on bail bonds of Rs. 100,000 with one surety. The Court noted that its observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial (paragraphs 3 and 4). ## The case at a glance - **Facts:** A case under section 489-F registered in Islamabad on 28 March 2023. The accused was arrested on 23 January 2025. The trial court and the Islamabad High Court refused post arrest bail. - **The question:** Whether bail should be refused in a 489-F case, including because of the amount involved. - **What the Court held:** Bail granted. The offence is in the non-prohibitory clause, no exceptional circumstances were shown, and the amount is not an exception to the rule. - **Why:** In non-prohibitory offences bail is the rule and refusal the exception, kept for risks such as abscondence, tampering or repetition. Section 489-F is not a recovery tool; recovery is under Order XXXVII CPC. - **Limits:** The observations were tentative, made for bail only, and do not decide guilt. Each bail application turns on its own facts, and the court can refuse bail where exceptional circumstances exist. ## In the Court’s words > "It is further noted that the quantum of amount involved in a case registered under section 489-F cannot be treated as an exception to the general rule that in cases falling under the category of non-prohibitory clause, bail shall be considered favourably." (2025 SCMR 1955, para 3) > "The offence under section 489-F of P.P.C. is not a provision which is intended by the legislature to be used for recovery of the alleged amount." (2025 SCMR 1955, para 3) ## The law it relies on - **Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, s.489-F:** "How ever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque." - **Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXVII:** Named by the Supreme Court in 2025 SCMR 1955 as the framework the legislature has set out for recovering the amount of a dishonoured cheque. ## What this does not mean - It does not mean bail is automatic. The court decides each case and can refuse bail in exceptional cases, such as a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or repeating the offence. - It does not mean issuing a cheque that bounces is not a crime. Section 489-F still applies, and the trial decides guilt. - It does not mean the money is lost. The holder of the cheque can sue for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ## Questions people ask ### Can I get bail in a 489-F bounced cheque case? The Supreme Court said in 2025 SCMR 1955 that 489-F falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497, so bail is to be considered favourably as a rule. It can be refused in exceptional cases. Speak to your lawyer. ### The cheque was for a very large amount. Will bail be refused? Not for that reason. The Supreme Court said the amount involved cannot be treated as an exception to the rule that bail is considered favourably in such cases. ### How do I recover the money from a bounced cheque? Through a civil suit. The Supreme Court said the legislature has set out the framework for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, and 489-F is not meant for recovery. ## Sources - Aqeel Ahmed Khan v. The State through Federal Prosecutor General, Islamabad and another, 2025 SCMR 1955, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 12 August 2025, paras 1, 3, 4. 489-F is in the non-prohibitory clause; bail is the rule and refusal the exception; the cheque amount is not an exception; 489-F is not a recovery provision; bail granted. (verified against full text) (official text: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.p._960_2025.pdf) - Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, s.489-F (text checked in FAI Statute Search) (official text: https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5lo-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj) ## What the reel says Heard this one? "A bounced cheque means no bail." Wrong. Section 489-F PPC: imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. The Supreme Court (August 2025): the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of s.497 CrPC, so bail is the rule and refusal the exception, kept for exceptional cases: a risk of absconding, tampering with the evidence, or repeating the offence. However large the cheque, the amount is not a reason to refuse bail (2025 SCMR 1955). And 489-F is not a way to recover the money. For recovery, the law provides a civil suit (Order XXXVII, CPC). Bail is never automatic; the court decides. Talk to your lawyer about your own case. --- Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. English: https://failegal.site/media/bail489 · Urdu: https://failegal.site/media/ur/bail489 FAI Media is part of FAI Legal (https://failegal.site), research on Pakistani statutes and judgments. Free to watch and read.