2005 PLP 1607 (YLR)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F

Bail, grant of--Further inquiry-- F.I.R. in the case had been lodged with a delay of about three and a half months

F.I.R., showed that accused had not entered into any contract with complainant

Mere giving of a cheque by accused to complainant, prima facie, could not show that same was' given by accused to complainant towards fulfilment of any obligation--Question regarding applicability of provisions of S.489-F, P. P. C. to allegation against accused called for further probe

Accused was lodged in judicial lock-up and investigation against him had already been finalized

Continued custody of accused was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at that stage

Offence alleged against accused did not attract prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr. P. C.

Case against accused calling for further inquiry, he was admitted to bail. Abdul Hafeez for Ansari Petitioner. Ghulzar Ahmad for the State with Mehmood Ahmad, A.S.-I. with Record. Date of hearing: 1st December, 2004. Through this petition, Sardar Hussain petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.442, registered at Police Station, Satellite Town, Gujranwala on 27-7-2004 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of about three and a half months. According to the F.I.R. itself the present petitioner had not entered into any contract with the complainant and, thus, mere giving of a cheque by the petitioner to the complainant prima facie may not show that the same was given by the petitioner to the complainant towards fulfilment of any obligation. In this view of the matter the question regarding applicability of the provisions' of section 489-F, P.P.C. to the allegation against the petitioner calls for further probe at this stage. The petitioner is lodged in judicial lock-up as the investigation qua him has already been finalized and, thus, his continued custody is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances mentioned above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-333/L Bail granted.