2007 YLR 347 (PLP)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.131 dated 20-3-2006 for offences under sections 406 and 489-F P.P.C., registered at police station A-Division Okara. Petitioner was allowed interim post-arrest bail by this Court on 28-7-2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.18,00,000 in favour of the complainant which on presentation to the bank was dishonoured.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been falsely involved in the case at the instance of the complainant on account of F.I.R. No.913 of 2005 lodged against the complainant by the petitioner on 31-8-2005; that the matter essentially was one of civil nature and a suit in the said regard had been filed by the complainant against the petitioner, that in the said suit the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000 whereas in the F.I.R. the amount had been exaggerated to Rs.18,00,000; that the police on account of mala fide was not associating the petitioner with the investigation; that the cheque book relating to the cheque in question had been received by one Karman in connivance with the complainant; that the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. were not hit by the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Shaukat Rafique Bajwa, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant, contended that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. and the role of dishonestly issuing a cheque in favour of the complainant had been assigned to him; that during the course of investigation the petitioner had been found guilty by the police and consequently, challan was submitted before the learned trial Court in which charge had been framed and prosecution evidence had been summoned. However, the petitioner was delaying the trial proceedings by seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other; that the petitioner filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal which was dismissed by the learned trial Court; that the proceedings under section 87 of the Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the petitioner by the learned trial Court; that the petitioner was involved in six cases of similar nature and that the petitioner having failed to establish any mala fide of the complainant or the police for his false involvement in the case, was therefore, not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of issuing a cheque in favour of the complainant has been ascribed to him which on presentation to the bank was dishonoured, thus, showing dishonesty on the part of the petitioner. During investigation the petitioner was found to be fully involved in the crimes alleged against him. Proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. have been initiated by the learned trial Court. After submission of challan charge has been framed and prosecution evidence has been summoned. However, a copy of the order-sheet produced by the learned counsel for the complainant reveals that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other in order to delay the trial proceedings. Record reveals that the petitioner is a habitual offender as six cases of similar nature stand registered against him. Although a civil suit has been filed by the complainant, nevertheless, civil as well as criminal proceedings can continue side by side. Insofar as the matter regarding cheque book having been procured by a third person on behalf of the petitioner in connivance with the complainant is concerned, the petitioner till date has not filed any complaint or lodged any F.I.R. in the said respect which goes to show that the stance taken by the petitioner is prima facie baseless. From the record it is evident that at present there is enough incriminating material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.

7. Resultantly, this petition being without any force is dismissed. S.M.B./J-30/L Petition dismissed.