2012 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

Arshad Hussain petitioner/accused in case F.I.R. No.185 of 2011, dated 22-2-2011, under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station City Raiwind, District Lahore, has sought pre-arrest bail on the ground that he has been falsely involved in this case.

2. As per F.I.R. lodged on the application of Syed Arsalan Gillani, Proprietor of Telenor Franchise, Raiwind, it is alleged that Arshad Hussain works with him as CRM; that about 15 days back on account of audit it revealed that accused Arshad Hussain has committed misappropriation of Rs.16 lacs in commercial cell; that on interrogation the accused confessed the guilt and issued Cheque No.3687926 for 29-9-2010 to be drawn on United Bank Limited Raiwind City Branch; that the said cheque on presentation to the relevant Branch on 29-9-2010 was bounced for want of credit; that the accused has committed the offence by misappropriating the amount as well as by issuing bogus cheque.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated with malice; that the F.I.R. is lodged on 22-2-2010 and at that time the petitioner was working with the complainant; that as per F.I.R. if the audit was held 15 days ago i.e., 7-2-2011 then how the cheque could be issued on 29-9-2010; that in fact when the petitioner joined the complainant as an employee a blank cheque and stamp paper both duly signed by him were given to the complainant as security; that the matter pertains to rendition of accounts between the parties; that on rendition of account by the senior officers of the Franchise the matter was settled; that even today the petitioner is ready to submit himself for rendition of accounts and that the matter is of civil nature; that no dishonest transaction was ever made by the petitioner through the impugned cheque.

4. It is resisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the DPG for the State with the argument that admittedly the impugned cheque is signed by the petitioner which has been bounced reflecting mala fide of the accused.

5. At the outset learned counsel for the complainant was asked to reconcile the complainant's divergent version as set forth in the F.I.R. lodged on 22-2-2011 that misappropriation came to the surface upon audit held 15 days before lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. 7-2-2011 whereas cheque in question was issued on 29-9-2010. Learned counsel for the complainant could not reconcile the aforementioned material contradiction. It also astonishes that if the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation 15 days before lodging of the F.I.R. why his services were retained till 22-2-2011 when the F.I.R. was lodged. Photocopies of the Day Book, Quick Book, vouchers and details of the transactions furnished by the petitioner as Annexure-B to Annexure-G/2 reflect that the matter pertains to rendition of accounts between the parties. The dispute therefore is of civil nature. Petitioner's defence version that in fact a blank cheque and stamp paper duly signed by him were furnished to the complainant as security when he joined as an employee cannot be discarded at all at this stage. He has joined the investigation and got recorded his version to the I.O. as set forth in the present petition. Dishonest and fraudulent intention in issuance of a cheque is sine qua non to attract the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. whereas the instant case appears to be of rendition of accounts between the parties. The cheque was allegedly bounced on 29-9-2010 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 22-2-2011 with a delay of five months. In cases of such inordinate and unexplained delay chances of false implication with deliberation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the alleged issuance of cheque before the impugned audit disclosing any misappropriation is necessarily a case of further probe. Besides above, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

6. For the above discussion and reasons, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-196/L Bail confirmed.