2006 PLP 3043 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.--Muhammad Nadeem Amin son of Muhammad Amin, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.35, dated 16-1-2006, registered at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. at the instance of Ahmad Raza son of Atta Ullah Bhutta.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner, according to the F.I.R., was that he issued certain cheques of different dates in favour of the complainant for the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.28,48,366, which had been invested by him in the business with the petitioner and when the said cheques had been presented to the Drawee Bank, the same had been dishonnoured. According to the complainant, the petitioner had been promising to pay the said amount back, but he failed to abide by his commitments.

3. Apprehending his imminent arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioner approached the Court of Session at Lahore for pre-arrest bail, but his plea did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who proceeded to dismiss his application vide order dated 15-3-2006. Hence, the instant petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Talib Hussain, S.-I. and Iqbal Hussain, S.-I.

5. It has been observed that the petitioner and the complainant had been involved in business transaction on the basis of an agreement dated 18-10-2003 with the petitioner's firm and the complainant was appointed as sole distributor for the products manufactured by the firm. Afterwards the petitioner had taken some amount from the complainant and had issued post-dated cheques in his favour, which had been dishonoured. No doubt the issuance of the cheques in question stood admitted. The petitioner has been associating with the investigation, wherein he has been found guilty. The plea of defence taken by the petitioner before, the Investigating Officer, did not appeal to him. Prima facie there appears to be material incriminating evidence available on the record connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any malice, the basis ingredient for the grant of pre arrest bail, either on the part of the complainant or the police to involve the petitioner falsely in this case. The complainant had been deprived of a huge amount at the hands of the petitioner. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to pre-arrest bail. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the interim anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioner by this Court on 22-3-2006 is hereby recalled. H.B.T./M-462/L Bail refused.