2010 PLP 2764 (YLR)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Muhammad Mansha Khan petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.217 of 2010 dated 14-4-2010 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., at Police Station, Defence-B, Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Akram Butt.

2. Briefly, the version of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R. is, that he gave a cheque of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant in the backdrop of a dispute over a property deal, which was presented on the counters of Soneri Bank DHA, Branch, Lahore for encashment, but it was returned unpaid by the bank for insufficiency of funds.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely roped in this case; that the petitioner was a property dealer who was in fact, a mediator between Muhammad Arshad, the owner of plot and the complainant; the earnest money of Rs.4,00,000 was paid to Muhammad Ashraf by the complainant through courtesy of the petitioner, and that he had nothing to do with the title of the suit property; the allegation contained in the F.I.R. is absolutely false and the complainant under the garb of this F.I.R. had conspired to blackmail him; the petitioner had been falsely roped in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives of the complainant; the petitioner had a genuine apprehension of arrest for tainted purposes as the police has colluded with the complainant; the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein, the Civil Court had summoned the complainant, being one of the defendants, to file written reply to the suit; that the petitioner had prayed in the above said suit that the impugned cheque No.PLS 9389616 of Soneri Bank, DHA Branch, Lahore, as well as the deed prepared on the blank paper, be declared illegal, null and void and the same be cancelled; that the actual owner of the plot Muhammad Ashraf was still prepared to act upon the afore-mentioned deal, if the complainant was ready to pay him the balance amount of Rs.3.6 millions; the petitioner is innocent and he may be allowed to bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention, that the petitioner had dishonestly issued a cheque for discharge of his liability, knowingly, that sufficient funds were not available, so, he had committed the offence, alleged against him; that the cheque had been returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds in the bank account of petitioner; that two witnesses Muhammad Ikram and Zahid Ikram had recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. as to the factum of deliverance of cheque by the petitioner to the complainant; the petitioner had entered into two written agreements with the complainant about the said plot, by showing him the owner of the plot; the petitioner had not been involved in this case, due to any malice or mala fide of the complainant; that the petitioner had committed a non-bailable offence so he may not be allowed bail before arrest.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It has been alleged against the petitioner that he had posted himself as the owner of the plot and sold it to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.4 millions and received Rs.4,00,000 from him as earnest money. The petitioner entered into written agreement one after the other confirming therein that he had struck a deal with the complainant qua the said plot for Rs.4 millions, out of which he had received Rs.4,00,000 and that he would get the sale-deed attested in favour of the complainant in due course of time, on receipt of total consideration amount. This agreement fell through, as, the complainant learnt that the petitioner was not the owner of the said plot but he was an agent of Muhammad Ashraf, the actual owner of the plot. On knowing this fact, the complainant got furious and the deal was cancelled. The petitioner entered into another agreement with the complainant on 12-4-2009 wherein he admitted that the deal had been cancelled and that he had handed down a cheque of Rs.3,75,000 of Soneri Bank to the complainant and that he would be responsible for the encashment of same. The petitioner again signed an agreement on 16-12-2009, whereby, he undertook to pay the proceeds of the aforesaid cheque to the complainant by March 15, 2010. He, however, failed to live up to his promise which finally culminated in the registration of the instant F.I.R. The petitioner prima facie has committed an offence which falls within the definition of section 489-F, P.P.C. No malice or ulterior motive of the complainant or that of the police could be hinted at by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is a condition precedent for seeking extra-ordinary concession of bail before arrest. Prima facie, there are no reasons to believe that the petitioner has not committed any non-bailable offence.

7. For the foregoing reasons I am not inclined to accept this application which stands dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner on 6-5-2010 is recalled. N.H.Q./M-340/L Pre-arrest bail refused.