2012 P Cr (PLP)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim, accused/petitioner herein, has filed, this application for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No. 146 dated 6-3-2012 of Police Station City D.I. Khan registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. Earlier, he has failed to get the said concession from the learned, lower fora vide impugned orders.

2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner is that he has fraudulently deprived the complainant from his pension amount of Rs.22,25,000 by obtaining the same as a loan and executing in this behalf two pro notes and also issued cheque No.093797521 dated 31-7-2011 for an amount of Rs.17,25,000 from his Account No.120041117, Allied Bank Circular Road Branch D.I. Khan, but it was dishonoured because the said account was already closed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely charged. He submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 31-7-2011 but the complainant had remained mum for sufficiently long and unexplained period of about five months when he submitted written report to the DPO D.I. Khan on 23-12-2011 which shows his mala fide intention. He urged that the local police after making inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in the matter without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations of the Complainant frivolously registered the case in hand against the petitioner. He argued that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and the petitioner has been falsely roped in the offence with the active connivance of the local police to make him pay a huge amount to the complainant. His submission was that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and thus the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned D.A.-G. for State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that he is directly charged by the complainant; that the offence is a heinous one; that the conduct of tie petitioner by itself is sufficient to disentitle, him to the concession of bail and that previously too, the petitioner has committed like nature offences on seven occasions as is evident from the impugned order.

5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The record reveals that the accused/petitioner in lieu of the amount of Rs.22,50,000 obtained by him from the complainant issued him a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,7,25,000 dated 31-7-2011 of his Account No.1200411.17, Allied Bank Circular Road Branch D.I. Khan, which was dishonoured, as the account was found already closed. The mere execution of two pro notes by the petitioner favouring the complainant cannot debar the latter from having recourse to the penal sections of law for the redressal of his grievances. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the offence does not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail as of right, is not a rule of universal application, because each case has to be thrashed out on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Reliance in this respect is placed on 2002 SCMR 442 and 2008 SCMR 807.

7. The record further shows that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender having issued like manner cheques to other people as well and in this respect he is facing prosecution in seven cases registered through different F.I.Rs. Such conduct of an accused has been abhored by the superior courts, specially when a person is involved in a series of cases relating to offences badly affecting the society at large. Even otherwise, the issuance of cheques which are in turn dishonoured for want of insufficient balance, or on account of closure of the account result in the erosion of inter se trust amongst the people of different strata of society.

8. As a sequal to the above discussion, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the grant of bail and, therefore, the application is dismissed.

9. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the proceedings during trial of the case. MWA/245/P Bail dismissed.