2007 PLP 1810 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.1147, dated 28-10-2005 for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque 'in the sum of Rs.5,80,000 in favour of the complainant which on presentation to the bank was dishonoured.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the complainant had joint business and on account of a business dispute the complainant had falsely involved the petitioner in the case with mala fide intention; that there was delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which had not been explained; that the petitioner denied having issued any cheque in favour of the complainant, hence, the matter was referred to the Forensic Science Lab., which gave a report in favour of the petitioner and against the complainant; that the report of the Bank Manager, which was on the record of the police, also revealed that the signatures of the petitioners did not tally with the signature on the record of the account in question; that no recovery had to be effected from the petitioner who had joined the investigation and was no more required by the police for any further investigation; that the complainant was involved in a number of cases for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. and that since the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of dishonestly issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant was assigned to him; that the petitioner had deliberately committed fraud with the petitioner and that the amount in question had yet to be recovered from him. Lastly contended that the report of Forensic Science Lab., showed some points of similarity in the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque and the document sent for comparison, hence, in view thereof the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. There is a delay of one month in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained on account of which false involvement of the petitioner in the case cannot be ruled out. A business dispute between the parties is not denied, hence it cannot be said that the cheque was given by the petitioner for repayment of loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is a condition precedent for attracting the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C. The petitioner had denied having signing the cheque in question which is affirmed by the report of the Forensic Science Lab. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioner as the cheque in question has already been taken into possession by the police during investigation. The report of the Bank Manager also supports the stand taken by the petitioner that he had neither issued the cheque in favour of the complainant nor signed the same. The Bank Manager in his report submitted that the signature on the cheque did not tally with the signatures on the signature card of the said account. A visual comparison made by the Court also shows remarkable different in signatures of the petitioner on the cheque and the signature card. In any case the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is punishable with a maximum sentence of 3 years, hence, the same does not fall within' the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Since the investigation is complete, as such sending the petitioner behind bars at this stage would not serve any useful purpose. Reference is made to the case of 2006 Ali Murtaza v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 1773), Safdar Hussain v. The State (2005 YLR 1607) and the case of Subedar Fazal Hussain v. Qazi Muhammad Basher and 12 others (PLD 1989 SC (AJ&K) 89).

7. For what has been discussed above the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 9-8-2006 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-82/L Bail confirmed.