2010 PLP 1177 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Shahid through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.104, registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., with Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore on 7-2-2009.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that he along with complainant Mian Bashir Ahmed, a retired CSP Officer and one Ehsan Ullah had set up a factory of medicines. Mian Bashir Ahmed as a sole distributor had to supply the medicines manufactured in their said factory. They all of a sudden closed their business and on his (complainant) demand gave him cheques worth Rs.25,00,000 on 10-11-2008. The same could not be encashed due to the closure of Bank Al-Habib, Thokar Niaz Baig Branch, Lahore. He (complainant) when against contacted him and demanded back his money, he (petitioner) extended him (complainant) threats of life.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he statedly is behind the bars since 19th March, 2009. This period thus, is spread over more than five months. The alleged does not attract the prohibition contained in section 496(1), Cr.PC. In the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, it has been held by their lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception. I hardly find any exceptional circumstances to warrant refusal of the relief to him. He is stated to be previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.

4. One aspect of the matter is that the F.I.R. contains that he (petitioner) had extended to the complainant the threats of life, when he demanded back his money. The said matter, if may be taken true as it is, the same maximum would attract an offence under section 506, P.P.C. The same again is not covered within the above-mentioned prohibitory clause.

5. Another aspect of the matter necessary to be mentioned here is that his side earlier had withdrawn his such application, on 5-6-2009, from this Court after having argued his case at some length. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has relied upon the case of Muhammad Riaz v. The State 2002 SCMR

184. In the esteemed authority the effect of withdrawal simplictor has been considered to be decision not on merits and subsequent application despite such withdrawal can be dealt with and decided on merits.

6. In these circumstances, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./M-718/L Bail granted.