2014 PLP 567 (YLR)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.763 of 2012 dated 18-12-2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Hajipura, District Sialkot.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives; there is a delay of six months in the registration of F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant, which clearly shows that the F.I.R. has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation; the petitioner is a previous non-convict and never involved in any other case; the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; he is behind the bars since 7-2-2013; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation of issuing cheques of huge amount in favour of the complainant to fulfil his obligation which on presentation were dishonoured by the concerned Bank; the cheques were issued by the present petitioner and the account is also in the name of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has defrauded the complainant of a huge amount of Rs.85,00,000 which is a financial murder of the family of the complainant and he does not deserve the concession of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record of this case. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of six months in the registration of F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant, which clearly shows that the F.I.R. has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 7-2-2013, investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

5. It may be observed here that section 489-F P.P.C. is not a mechanism for the recovery of amount. It is just a penal section and carries punishment of three years only; ultimately the complainant has to file suit in the civil court under Order XXXV1I, C.P.C. for the recovery of his amount.

6. For what has been discussed above, taking guidance from 2011 SCMR 1708 this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/R-2/L Bail granted.