2008L2563 (PLP)

IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.

The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 170, dated 18-6-2007 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. with Police Station B-Division, D.G. Khan.

2. The brief prosecution story as narrated by the complainant is that the petitioner got Rs.9,50,000 from the complainant on loan for his business and issued a cheque of the Bank of Punjab, D.G. Khan of Rs.500,000 on 31-3-2005 in favour of the complainant but the same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank authorities due to non-availability of funds.

3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan vide order, dated 16-7-2007.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 4-6-2005 while the F.I.R. has been lodged on 18-6-2007 after about two years of delay for which no explanation has been afforded by the complainant. Further that the complainant had kept the dishonoured cheque for two years and thereafter got registered the instant F.I.R. The complainant's suit: for recovery of Rs.5,00,000 is also pending before the District Judge, D.G. Khan, as such, the civil litigation between the parties is also pending; that it was a business dealing. Further contended that the` petitioner was given the amount on interest and during this period of two years the complainant has been receiving the interest; that it is case of civil liability. Further that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the sentence provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years, which is bailable and in such like cases the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. Reliance is placed on the case reported as PLD 1995 SC 34.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned D.P.G. vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the complainant in order to avoid going to the Courts as well as on account of the decision of the Panchait gave time to the petitioner as according to the agreement executed between the petitioner and the complainant, the petitioner was afforded time till March, 2007. Further that the payment was due to the purchase of "Khall", this factum has been admitted by the petitioner in his letter, dated 27-12-2002. It is further stated that the petitioner's brother is working under the complainant in the Department but he has not taken any action that would adversely affect him; that the petitioner is a habitual offender; there are other cases registered against him F.I.R. No. 28 of 2005 has been registered against the petitioner by one Ghulam Eesa Khan. Reliance is placed on the cases of Jehan Khan v. The State (PLD 2006 Lahore 302) and Ghulam Ahmed v. The State (2006 MLD 330). Further that the petitioner has deprived the petitioner of his life long savings for, which the complainant's health has been affected and the complainant has suffered a lot due to petitioner. Further that the fraud committed by the petitioner is of serious nature, it comes within the ambit of "Haraabah". Reliance is placed on the case of Lal Hussain v. Muhammad Akber and 2 others 1995 PCr.LJ

946. Further stated that though the offence is bailable yet even the pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail have been refused by this Court. Further state that the trial has commenced, charge has been framed against the petitioner.

6. Arguments heard, record perused.

7. Issuance of cheque is admitted by the petitioner to the complainant. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there was business dealing with the complainant, who had been advancing the petitioner and the petitioner had been paying interest upon that money on account of the business profits. Prima facie there is sufficient material against the petitioner to -show that the petitioner has not only issued the cheque to the complainant, which stands admitted, but the petitioner had in categorical terms undertaken to make payment to the complainant. There are other cases also registered against the petitioner, as such, the liability is more or less has also been admitted by the petitioner. The civil suit has been instituted at a latter stage after the rejection of the bail to the petitioner-by the lower Courts. Accused is allegedly involved in the commission of identical crimes under section 489-F, P.P.C. which had stigmatized him with habituality weighing against grant of bail. Admission of guilt by the accused is also an exceptional circumstances which together with element of fraud inherent to the offence, has made the case of the petitioner utterly unsuitable for the grant of bail to him.

8. For the foregoing reasons, by relying upon the cases of Jehan Khan v. The State (PLD 2006 Lahore 302) and Ghulam Ahmed v. The State (2006 MLD 330), the petitioner deserves no concession and, as such, this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./G-88/L Bail refused.