2012 PLP 722 (YLR)

MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

This petition has been filed through which post-arrest bail was sought to be ordered in a Case No.196 of 2011 dated 16-11-2011 under section 489-F APC registered at Police Station Thothal.

2. Precise facts of the case, according to the prosecution story, are that petitioner Mohammad Sharif issued a cheque to the complainant, Arshad Kamran, amounting to Rs.2,50,000 on 6-7-2011. This cheque was dishonoured on 21-7-2011 by the concerned bank when the same was presented for encashment. The petitioner was arrested on 17-11-2011.

3. Notice was issued to the learned Additional Advocate-General and arguments were heard on 17-12-2011. Mr. Kamran Tariq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and complainant has got registered a case due to differences of business between him and the petitioner with connivance of police. In fact there were differences between the parties on the business of plots. It is yet to be inquired that whether the cheque was issued dishonestly and knowing that the said cheque shall be dishonoured or not. The offence mentioned in the F.I.R. is punishable up to three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not more required by the police for investigation. The learned counsel further argued that the case was registered after four months when the cheque was dishonoured. The learned counsel requested to release the petitioner on bail and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments:-- (1) PLD 1995 SC 34 (2) 2010 YLR 624 (3) 2011 PCr.LJ 869.

4. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Additional Advocate-General, controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that petitioner was nominated and his role was clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. The petitioner, admittedly, issued a cheque in favour of complainant which was subsequently dishonoured by the concerned bank. The offence is non-bailable and the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and precedents referred, minutely.

6. The maximum punishment for the offence under section 489-F APC has been provided up to three years which, of course, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The offence under section 489-F APC does not constitute unless it is proved that the cheque was issued dishonestly and knowingly by the petitioner and, the same shall be dishonoured. This fact cannot be determined at bail stage and is of further inquiry. The accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 17-11-2011. The investigation has been completed and the petitioner is not required more by the police for further investigation. To keep the petitioner in judicial lockup will serve no purpose for the ends of justice. The principles indicated above get support from the precedents referred by the counsel for the petitioner. These principles have been reiterated also in the precedents referred. Having in view the circumstances mentioned above, it is hereby ordered that petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail and his personal bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 each, with one surety to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class at Mirpur; provided further that if he is not involved/required in any other offence or case. H.B.T./8/H.C.(AJ&K) Bail granted.