2016 PLP 1002 (YLR)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Shahzad Akhtar alias Sajjad (petitioner) is in fact real brother of the complainant's wife, who allegedly outwitted his behnoi Muhammad Saleem Shad Qureshi advocate and cleverly received a huge amount of money i.e. Rs.1,500,000/- at the rate of 4% and 5% profit per month from him against a couple of pronotes and an indemnity bond, which he allegedly executed in his favour on 1.11.2011 and 19.11.2011. It is learnt from the text of FIR No.8/14, dated 4.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sanda Lahore that he (petitioner) disappeared after he failed to disburse settled amount of profit to the lender or repay the debt to him; he was traced, after hectic efforts by the creditor (complainant), whom he issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was presented for encashment by him but it was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner allegedly lured his real sister's husband (complainant) into a trap and made him believe that he could fetch 4% to 5% profit per month against any amount of money, he would lend to him so as to bolster his business prospects. This is how he virtually wrested a massive amount of money, Rs.1,50,00,000/- from him by almost blindfolding him. He handed over to him two pronotes and an indemnity bond so as to satisfy him that the lent-amount did not involve any risk and it was absolutely safe for pinning hopes thereon to earn dividends against it. The rate of profit, allegedly offered by the petitioner was stunning as it was about ten times the rate, the bank would usually offer at per annum basis to the depositors or its clients. The complainant turned an easy prey and he tamely fell to the plot, allegedly carved out by the petitioner. As per allegations, the petitioner did not pay any profit to the complainant nor repaid the debt to him. He instead, showed a clean pair of heels to the related-creditor and went into hide-out without leaving any foot-marks behind. The complainant's hectic efforts, however bore fruit and he established contact with him at last. The petitioner slipped through his hands again after he issued the disputed cheque, value Rs.10,00,000/- and fourteen other instruments of equivalent face-value to the complainant, who presented all fifteen cheques one after the other for encashment, but none of them was honoured by the bank for sufficiency of funds. He could not help reporting the matter to the police and getting lodged ten cases against his once reliable kin, the petitioner. The detail is given hereunder:-

1. FIR No.1201/13, dated 31.12.2013, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

2. FIR No.3/14, dated 2.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

3. FIR No.8/14, dated 4.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore (under discussion herein).

4. FIR No.13/14, dated 6.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

5. FIR No.24/14, dated 8.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

6. FIR No.60/14, dated 17.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

7. FIR No.65/14, dated 19.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

8. FIR No.68/14, dated 19.1.2014, under section 489-F P.P.C.; Police Station Sanda Lahore.

9. FIR No.71/15, dated 21.1.2015, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore.

10. FIR No.72/15, dated 21.1.2015, under section 489-F P.P.C., Police Station Sanda Lahore. The complainant has still with him five more cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- each, allegedly issued by the petitioner and bounced by the bank for identical reason, which have not been reported to the police as yet. He remained an absconder for about a year and he was proceeded against under section 87, Cr.P.C. pending investigation on 21.6.2014. He cannot claim that he had no knowledge about registration of this case against him. It is a situation, wherein his unexplained abscondence would adversely affect his quest for bail. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence, the petitioner is pitted against, is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., so he is necessarily entitled to grant of bail, is not to be given any extra-importance, as in a case, not falling under the prohibitory clause, the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right, unless his case was open to further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. or no exceptionality was attached thereto. The petitioner's case neither falls within the ambit of further inquiry nor could it be so that it was sans any exceptional element. The details of occurrence easily reveal that each and every bit of it painted an exceptional situation, bringing it within the category of the cases, wherein bail cannot readily be allowed. Reliance in this regard may be had on Shameel Ahmad v. The State reported as 2009 SCMR 174.

3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has hinted at another factor, which shows that examination-in-chief of the complainant, who is a practicing lawyer, has been recorded in all ten cases, detailed as above, but defence, was reluctant to cross-examine him. Only in a couple of cases, during pendency of this petition, he has been cross-examined but not in all. It has also been highlighted by the learned law officer that the petitioner has four other cases of alike nature got registered against him by some other victims besides the complainant's ten cases, listed as above. The petitioner may be dubbed a habitual offender, who can go for a kill without any discrimination, may it be a close relative or a distantly placed person.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to accept this application, which is accordingly dismissed.

5. Before parting with this order, it would be a likeable idea to direct the learned trial court to accelerate proceedings of the trial of the accused, so as to conclude it within three months from the date of communication of this order, excluding the summer vacation, may it be on day-to-day basis.

6. The office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the learned trial court through some swift means, for necessary information and compliance. MH/S-86/L Bail dismissed.