P L D 2006 Lahore 491 (PLP)

SYED SIIABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioner filed this bail application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R..No.192, dated 30-7-2005, at Police Station, Kohsar, Islamabad under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the complainant reported that he was a Director of M/s. Trade House Limited and looking after business in Pakistan. The petitioner approached him and in consideration of a deal petitioner issued Cheque No.708861 to be drawn on Habib Al-Bank Al-Ain (U.A.E.) but the same was dishonoured. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner also issued 28 cheques on different dates (detail of which is mentioned in the F.I.R.), which were dishonourd. 3.? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant F.I.R. was registered on the orders of the learned ex officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 14-7-2005. He submits that the cheques were issued in the name of Al-Ain Branch, Abu Dhabi, issued in the name of M/s. Trading House Limited which company is also located in Abu Dhabi and about the same dispute a civil Court in Abu Dhabi has already given decision on 21-1-2004. He further submits that both companies are located in Sharjah (UAE) and deals between the parties which took place in Sharjah is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Kohsar. He submits that it is incorrect that the cheque was presented at Islamabad or any bank account is being operated by the petitioner in Islamabad. He also submits that in report of S.H.O. submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad he opposed the registration of the instant F.I.R. He also refers to section 188, Cr.P.C. and contends that mandatory provisions of section 188, Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled before registration of case. He submits that basically matter relates settlement of account between the parties. The petitioner is a responsible businessman and if not granted bail, he would be caused disgrace in the society.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that no mala fide has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor it exists. He further submits that recovery is yet to be effected in this case, therefore, pre-arrest bail, being an extraordinary concession should not be granted at this stage.

5. I have heard the learned counsel. The facts and arguments addressed from both sides make out abundantly clear that the petitioner and complainant were business partners but parted later on. The subject-matter of the F.I.R. relates to account. The S.H.O. himself reported before the learned Sessions Judge that no cognizable offence was committed within his jurisdiction. The order of the Civil Court in U.A.E. is also on record which indicates dispute between both the parties. The record also shows that the petitioner is a businessman and has no criminal record. The purpose of law of pre-arrest bail is to protect liberty and reputation of citizens, particularly in a case where circumstances and facts are full of suspicion. Benefit of doubt is always given to the accused person. Particularly, when it involves curtailment of liberty. Controversy over settlement of account germinates hatred and mala fide. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, element of mala tide cannot be ruled out.

6. In view of the above stated reasons, this application is allowed and interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order of this Court dated 8-9-2005 is confirmed subject to petitioner's furnishing of fresh surety bonds in the suns of Rs.20,00,000 (twenty lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. M.B.A./J-14/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.