2009 P Cr (PLP)

SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.

Complainant's company, ARYIANS International, entered into an agreement with REDO International (NGO) for supply of blankets and dry milk, worth Rs.4,83,50,000 (Rupees four crore, eighty three lac, and fifty thousand). Three consignments were delivered to HEDO International for which the accused petitioner Shaukat Ali, being Zonal Chief, delivered cheque No.0024767, dated 10-3-2008 for Rs.12,00,000, Cheque No.0024770, dated 12-3-2008 for Rs.4,00,000 and Cheque No.0024771, dated 12-3-2008 for Rs.12,00,

000. When the cheques were presented in the Standard Chartered Bank, Islamabad, they were dishonoured. Consequently this case under sections 419/420/468/471/489-F, P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.253, dated 3-4-2008 of Police Station City Mansehra. In consequence thereof, the accused petitioner was arrested and he was declined bail at the lower forums.

2. I have heard arguments of Syed Mubashir Shah, Advocate, for petitioner, Mr. Shad Muhammad Advocate, for complainant and Mr. Qaisar Rashid, A.A.-G. for State. Record has been gone through.

3. Main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the offences are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. but lesser punishment does not create a vested right for release on bail. Learned counsel for the complainant displayed another F.I.R. No.317 dated 18-4-2008 registered against the accused petitioner under sections 489-F/419/420/468/471, P.P.C. on the complaint of Haider Zaman and P.W. Furthermore, Sultan Muhammad has also registered a similar case against the accused petitioner, as per his statement recorded in this case under section 161, Cr.P.C. P.W. Zaheer Alam and Mir Ahmad were employees of the NGO of accused petitioner who have charged the accused petitioner for defrauding them.

4. It is well-settled principle of law that an accused cannot claim bail in non-bailable offences as a matter of right even though his case does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported in 2002 SCMR 442 and Haji Muhammad Nazir v. The State reported in 2008 SCMR

807. This is also a rule of law applied by the superior courts that when a person is involved in a series of cases related to offences badly affecting public-at-large, in such cases discretion of granting bail may be refused to an accused person. In this respect reliance is placed on Lal Hussain v. Muhammad Akbar reported in 1995 PCr.LJ 946, Ayaz Ahmad v. The State reported in 2002 PCr.LJ 965, Jehan Khan v. The State reported in PLD 2006 Lah. 302 and Mir Agha alias Jamshid v. Malang reported in 2008 PCr.LJ 606.

5. Besides, since it is a fraud case involving procurement of goods worth Rupees twenty-eight lacs through deceitful means, the documentary proof of which is available on record and the cheques have also been bounced, likelihood of-abscondence of accused too cannot be ruled out because in past too he has remained absconder for some time. Therefore, this is not a case in which discretion should be exercised in favour of accused petitioner in granting him bail. Hence the bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./180/P Bail refused.