2019 PLP 2467 (YLR)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner has been booked for the offence under sections 420/489-F, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 90/2018 dated 11-12-2018 of Police Station Airport Gilgit.

2. The FIR mentioned above was lodged by one Fahad son of Attaullah Jan Malik, resident of Sonikot Gilgit, whereby he statedly paid Rs. 20,00000/- (twenty lac) to the petitioner and the petitioner was to pay back the amount on 01-08-2018. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 13095123937, which on presentation in Bank of Punjab was not honourd due to insufficient balance. The complainant stated that above situation was brought into knowledge of the petitioner, who made certain excuses and lastly extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant, which forced the complainant to lodged FIR against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner applied for bail before arrest in the Court of learned Vacation/Sessions Judge Gilgit, who was refused to the bail before arrest to the petitioner vide judgment/order dated 11.01.2019.

4. On the same day the petitioner filed the instant Cr. Misc bearing No. 13/ 2019 before the Honorable Vacation Judge of this Court, which was allowed vide judgment/order dated 17.01.2019.

5. The case came for hearing before me today.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The complainant has malafidely lodged the FIR against the petitioner with mala fide intention just to achieve his own ill designs. The petitioner is a respectable person and his arrest will cause humiliation in the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments have also placed some bank statements to show that there had been some business transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and in such like situation the FIR is not maintainable. The petitioner's bail before arrest be confirmed in the above circumstances.

7. The learned counsel for the complaint and learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petitioner and submitted that the complainant has been deprived of a huge amount, which the petitioner was bound to pay till 01.08.2018. The complainant has no earthly reasons to falsely involve the petitioner/accused in the above offence. Lastly that the issuance of cheque has been admitted by the petitioner which was not hounored. No case for bail before arrest is made out and the same be recalled in the given circumstances of the case.

8. It is not denied that the cheque in question has been issued by the petitioner/accused. It has already been held by this Court in a case titled "Wajid Ullah Baig v. The State" reported in 2017 PCr.LJ 1189, that dishonoring of cheque is a financial murder of not only the effected person but also his whole family. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 489-F

Cheating and dishonestly inducing of property, dishonestly issuing a cheque

Bail, refused of

Habitual offender

Prosecution case was that the accused petitioner in order to fulfill his financial obligation issued cheques of various amount and when these cheques were presented before the bank encashment, they were dishonored

Accused petitioner had defrauded the complainant of huge amount by issue bogus cheques while there was insufficient amount in his account

Chief Court observed that normal business transaction should not be made base for criminal liability but the present case does not fall within the category of civil transaction. The act of the petitioner involves mens-rea regarding the alleged dishonest and fraudulent representation of facts

Accused petitioner had injured not only valuable rights of the families and had added severe mental and psychological torture into their miseries but also ruined their future

If such like criminals were allowed bail simply on the ground that offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., it would amount to granting premium to the offender

Admittedly different alike FIRs were registered against the accused petitioner, which showed that accused petitioner was a habitual offender and was issuing bogus cheques to different people without realizing its consequence

Circumstances established that accused petitioner did not deserve any leniency

Bail was declined accordingly"

9. The petitioner has not denied the issuance of cheque, which after presentation was bounce back due to insufficient balance. The petitioner instead of compensating the complainant extended threats to the complainant, which act cannot be seen with good taste.

10. In view of above discussion, the petition for bail before arrest is not maintainable. The same is declined accordingly. MQ/7/GB Bail refused.