2017 PLP 202 (YLRN)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, Shahzad Akhtar, as per FIR No.805/16, dated 26.7.2016, under section 489-F P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sanda Lahore, is that he issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to Muhammad Saleem Qureshi (complainant) to partially repay the debt, who presented it for encashment, but it was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds; he was, in fact, a brother-in-law (sala) of the complainant and he exploited this relationship to borrow a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- at the rate of 4% to 5% profit in November 2011, but he returned nothing to him and instead, went into hide-out; on having been found by the complainant, he issued the disputed cheque to him.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the disputed cheque was bounced by the bank on 8.1.2014, but the complainant did not report this matter to the police for more than two and a half years, albeit, he got lodged as many as six FIRs. against him for the same offence in the intervening time. The detail of these FIRs. is as under:-- i) FIR No.24/2014, dated 8.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. ii) FIR No.60/2014, dated 17.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. iii) FIR No.65/2014, dated 19.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. iv) FIR No.68/2014, dated 19.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. v) FIR No.71/2014, dated 21.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. vi) FIR No.72/2014, dated 21.1.2014, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Sanda, Lahore. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he obviously got lodged ten FIRs. under section 489-F, P.P.C. against the accused/petitioner, wherein he has been convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment each and his appeals against the judgments of the learned trial court had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The learned counsel could not convincingly tell as to why did he hold the instant cheque back, when he got registered the above-noted criminal cases against him and he merely submitted that the accused had requested him not to report this particular transaction to the police, as he would refund the entire debt-amount to him soon. This submission of the learned counsel did not impress much nor could it repel the impression that the cheque-in-issue might have been withheld by him with a mala fide intention, so as to wait for till such time that the accused would remain in jail in previously lodged cases for years and then he would be involved in another one, the freshly lodged. Even in this case, the petitioner has been in jail since 24.9.2016. Not to be forgotten, he stood imprisoned in the previous cases since 6.12.2014. His position of being a convict in the above-noted cases would hardly come in the way of this application, only for over-smartness of the complainant. It is not an inelastic rule that bail plea of a previous convict must be declined in any situation. Had the complainant got lodged another FIR about the cheque in hand along with the previous ones, he would have been in jail for an equal length of time, as in the other cases. Law is not too flexible to be moulded to one's own choice, whims and facility. It looks hard to believe at this stage that the complainant delayed lodgment of this case against the petitioner for some valid reason or with a bona fide intention. Undoubtedly, offence under section 489-F P.P.C. does not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. being punishable with three years imprisonment.

3. Therefore, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. WA/S-38/L Bail granted.