2012 PLP 799 (MLD)

KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Petitioner, namely, Wajid Ali son of Amanullah, having failed to secure his release on bail in the lower Courts, have approached this Court for seeking the same relief.

2. Short facts of the instant case are that the accused/petitioner was charged in case F.I.R. No.275 dated 3-5-2011 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station, City District D.I.Khan. In the F.I.R. the accused/petitioner was charged by the complainant for issuance of two separate cheques of Rs.25,56,000 and Rs.20,90,000 pertaining to account No.0120018906 owned by the accused petitioner in Allied Bank, Faqirni Gate Branch, D.I.Khan, for the date 5-4-2011 and 6-4-2011 respectively but both cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient balance.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended that the application for registration of case was moved after delay of 17 days of the issuance of cheques. He argued that no receipt regarding the issuance of medicine to the accused/petitioner by the complainant has been produced to the police and there is nothing on record that the accused/petitioner had any business terms with the complainant. He submitted that the punishment of the present case does not fall within Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that it is the case of further inquiry and accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant argued that the accused/petitioner, has been issued cheques of Rs.25,56,000 on 5-4-2011 and Rs.20,90,000 on 6-4-2011 which were dishonoured on 11-4-2011 by the Manager of Allied Bank which is sufficient to connect the accused/petitioner with commission of offence. He argued that the accused/petitioner not only involved in the present case rather he has been involved in three other criminal cases of similar nature through which he has committed fraud with other persons by issuing bogus cheques. He submitted that the accused/petitioner is habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled to concession of bail.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. It is correct that the alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, however, accused/petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant by issuing the said cheques which were bounced due to insufficient balance. While learned counsel for the accused petitioner when confronted with other similar nature of criminal cases committed by the accused/petitioner and the copy of F.I.R. produced by the learned counsel for complainant before the Court he admitted the same as correct. From the very conduct of the accused/petitioner it is crystal clear that the accused/petitioner is involved in such like other cases though the offence is punishable only for three years but keeping in view the conduct of the accused/petitioner and nature of offence of similar cases he is not entitled for the concession of bail at this stage.

7. With the above observations, the instant criminal miscellaneous bail petition is dismissed. H.B.T./309/P Bail refused.