2016 PLP 1640 (YLR)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR No.1248/2014, dated 28.9.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, is that he mortgaged his ten marlas' house for Rs.20,00,000/- to Muhammad Younas (complainant) on 2.12.2011 and received the entire amount through a mortgage-deed, executed in presence of the witnesses; he got the said house on rent at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month from the mortgagee through tenancy agreement, the same day; he issued seventeen cheques of Rs.60,000/- each to the mortgagee, ten out of which were timely encashed but three of them were bounced by the bank; he refunded Rs.15,00,000/- to the creditor/mortgagee, who returned four cheques to him; for remaining amount of the mortgage-debt, Rs.5,00,000/, a fresh mortgage-deed and tenancy-agreement were scribed by the parties on 15.1.2013, in terms of which, he (mortgager) issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- and six cheques of Rs.15,000/- each in relation to the rent, four out of which were encashed and two, one of Rs.15,000/- and the other of Rs.5,00,000/-, were dishonoured by the bank; he did not pay the monthly rent from December 2013 to September 2014, amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- to the mortgagee/complainant; the total value of bounced cheques was Rs.7,10,000/-.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner is not based on any evidence and he has been dragged into this case through his clever tactics by the complainant; the petitioner committed mistake of borrowing some amount of money on interest from the complainant and ended up in a vicious circle, which virtually upset his routine life; the trap laid down by the complainant has already deprived the petitioner of his life-long savings and there is not left much with him to get out of the trouble; the complainant himself admitted before the arbitrators that he had been receiving profits against the debt-amount from the petitioner and it was merely an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, which figured in his books as receivable.

3. On the contrary, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application with the contention that the petitioner being a bank-officer befooled the complainant and usurped heavy amount of money from him under the garb of a mortgage-agreement; the cheques, having been dishonestly issued by the petitioner to the complainant were bounced by the bank one after the other and he owed lacs of rupees to the mortgagee-creditor; the petitioner has committed a non-bailable offence, hence, he may not be granted the extra-ordinary relief of bail-before-arrest.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the proposition involved herein is not as plain as it has been shown to be by the complainant in the FIR. The facts of the case look self-contradictory, giving rise to fair amount of doubt, as to authenticity of his claim. In the first mortgage-deed and tenancy agreement, executed between the parties on 2.12.2011, the mortgage-debt in relation to the said house was fixed as Rs.20,00,000/- with monthly rent of Rs.60,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the mortgagee/ complainant, wherefor the petitioner allegedly issued seventeen cheques of Rs.60,000/- each to the complainant. In the later mortgage and tenancy agreements, executed on 15.1.2013, the mortgage-debt of the same house was fixed as Rs.5,00,000/- and monthly rent thereof as Rs.15,000/-, wherefor the mortgager issued six cheques of Rs.15,000/- each to the creditor-mortgagee. The huge difference in terms of both the agreements gives rise to an impression that it was some other dispute between the parties than the one, brought on the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically submitted that the petitioner obtained loan of Rs.20,00,000/- on interest from the complainant and he had already paid Rs.31,00,000/- by now to him, but his ledgers still showed lacs of rupees still to be paid by him. He further submitted that the petitioner had unluckily been dragged into a vicious circle by the cunning complainant, whose demands were ever increasing despite lacs of rupees repayment to him by the debtor. The learned counsel referred to an arbitration decision, which showed that a large amount of money had already been paid by the accused/petitioner as profit to the complainant and that the remaining amount was merely Rs.2,50,000/-. The learned counsel submitted a copy of the arbitration decision, duly signed by both the parties. This document was shown to the complainant for his comments thereto, who looked at it and said that the accused still owed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to him, which he would receive at any cost. The reply given by the complainant as to aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is astounding as it falls no where near to his claim, that he made in the FIR. The probability cannot be ruled out that the petitioner may have been falsely involved in this case by the complainant through some exaggerative allegations, based on malice or some ulterior motives. Therefore, this application is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 6.5.2015 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. RR/H-25/L Petition accepted.