2009 PLP 556 (YLR)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

Through this miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.448, dated 5-12-2006 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C, at Police Station Shalimar (Islamabad).

2. Brief facts of this case are that the present petitioner after getting loan of Rs.26,50,000 from the complainant, issued a cheque for payment of the loan, which was dishonoured by the concerned Bank twice, on presentation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this false case has been registered against the petitioner with mala fide intention; that there was business transaction between the petitioner and complainant and the case was got registered concealing number of facts from the concerned Police Officer; that amount of Rs.14,75,000 was paid in cash to the complainant and remaining amount was adjusted with him by handing over files of Capital Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (Islamabad); that on 3-4-2006 amount Rs.4,75,000 was deposited through Union Bank, but this fact has not been investigated during the investigation; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 20-months, whereas, punishment provided for the offence attributed to him is 3 years, but the trial has yet not been concluded; that cheque was issued on 30-8-2005 and was presented before the concerned Bank on 15-2-2006, whereas, F.I.R. was got registered on 5-12-2006; that the complainant side remained mum for a long period, which itself makes the case that of further inquiry; that during investigation two persons sworn affidavits that although there was dispute of payment of amount, but petitioner has paid Rs.14,75,000, in cash. He has supported his contentions while relying on the case laws reported as 2007 MLD 926 Muhammad Nadeem v. The State, 2007 PCr.LJ 100, Farrukh Hameed v. The State and others and 2007 PCr.LJ 1824 Muhammad Shoaib Anwar v. The State.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the challan in this case has already been submitted in the Court, charge against the accused has been framed and trial is likely to start; that issuance of cheque & amount is admitted by the accused/petitioner.

5. Learned Federal Counsel has adopted arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.

6. I have heard arguments of both sides and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly there was a business transaction between the parties. Complainant has also admitted before this Court that he received an amount of Rs.4,75,000 however, he categorically stated that the same was part of other transaction. Interesting aspect of this case is that the cheque was issued on 30-8-2005 and was presented on 1-2-2006 an F.I.R. was got registered on 5-12-2006. The complainant remained silent for a long period and no explanation in this regard has come on the record, which makes this case that of further inquiry. Although challan in this case has been submitted in the Court, but admittedly there is no progress in the trial and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one and a half year. Punishment provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. is 3 years and substantial part of three years has been undergone by the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that if a case is made out for grant of bail, the bail should not be refused or withheld as an instrument of punishment. It is the trial Court, which has to finally decide the guilt or innocence of an accused person, before that stage, every accused is to be treated innocent and he can only be kept behind the bars when it is so required under the law.

8. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bond valuing Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the I satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, within 4-months positively. H.B.T./I-2/Isl. Bail granted.