2014 PLP 1171 (YLR)

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

As per certificate this is petitioner's first post-arrest bail before this Court in this case.

2. Muhammad Ashraf Choudhry petitioner/accused in case F.I.R. No.59/ 2014 dated 16-1-2014 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala seeks post-arrest bail through this petition.

3. As per F.I.R. lodged on 16-1-2014 on the application of Maqsood Ahmed complainant it is alleged that petitioner purchased motorcycles from him; that petitioner paid some of the amount in cash and for the payment of balance amount he issued a Cheque No.0186711 dated 24-7-2013 amounting Rs.7,00,000 to be drawn on Dubai Islamic Bank in favour of complainant which was bounced due to objection of 'stop payment'.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is falsely implicated with malice; that there is unexplained delay of more than five months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that as a matter of fact the petitioner issued various cheques in favour of the complainant as a guarantee; that prior to registration of this case complainant has also lodged another F.I.R. No.916/2013 under section 489-F, P.P.C. with Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala against the petitioner; that petitioner had no dishonest intention in issuance of the cheque; that the impugned cheque was not issued for repayment of any loan or fulfilment of any financial obligation; that the offence under section 489-F P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22-1-2014; that no recovery is effected from the petitioner by the police; that investigation is complete; that the case of the petitioner is a matter of further inquiry; that petitioner's incarceration would not serve any cause of justice therefore petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

5. It is resisted by learned A.P.-G. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant with the contentions that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that the cheque was issued by the petitioner with dishonest intention to usurp complainant's amount; that issuance of cheque is not denied by the petitioner; that there is nothing on the record to establish that the impugned cheque was given as guarantee; that the petitioner has criminal antecedents being involved in some other cases of like nature; that there is no malice on the part of complainant or police to falsely implicate the petitioner; that prosecution has prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence therefore he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. As per contents of F.I.R. occurrence allegedly took place on 25-7-2013 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 16-1-2014 after delay of more than five months. No sufficient reason is assigned for such inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. Admittedly prior to registration of this case complainant has also got recorded a case bearing F.I.R. No.916/2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala against the petitioner with the same allegation. In this case complainant has concealed this fact. In the attending circumstances petitioner's plea that cheques were given to the complainant as guarantee cannot be discarded outrightly. Dishonest intention in issuing the cheque is sine qua non to attract the offence under section 489-F P.P.C. which is yet to be established during course of evidence. Alleged guilt of the petitioner therefore is necessarily a matter of further probe. No recovery is pending against the petitioner. The offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation of this case is complete and the petitioner is behind the bars since 22-1-2014. Petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. Challan has been submitted but there is no progress in the trial. Petitioner's incarceration is not likely to serve any cause of justice at this stage. In such like cases bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment. As regards petitioner's involvement in couple of cases of like nature allegedly registered against him suffice to say that the prosecution has not produced any material with regard to petitioner's conviction in any of the criminal cases registered against him. Mere pendency of any other criminal case is no hindrance for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner who is otherwise entitled to the relief on merits.

8. For the above discussion and reasons, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surely in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. HBT/M-82/L Bail granted.