' Muhammad Akbar (Muhammad Akbar Ali the petitioner by filing the instant petition, seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,64, dated 25-2-2004, registered with Police Station Sharqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura for offences under sections 489-F, 420 and 506, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that his son Nadeem Akbar had received a sum of Rs,6,00,000 from the complainant for delivery of two vehicles, but he failed to fulfil his commitment and issued a cheque for Rs,4,00,000 in the name of the complainant, which, on presentation, was dishonoured. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been registered.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 27-10-2004, when pre-arrest bail allowed to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala was cancelled by this Court on the said date. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favor with the learned Additional Session Judge Ferozewala, who turned down his application vide order, dated 19-11-2004. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record brought by Javed Iqbal, A.S.-I.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the statement of his account attached with this petition, where against the disputed cheque had been issued. It is revealed from the record that the disputed cheque bearing No,931918 had been a part of a cheque book containing fifty leaves. The next leaf in the cheque book i,e, cheque No,931919 had been used on 25- 11-1999, whereas the last leaf thereof bearing No,931950 had been encashed on 15-1-2002. The contention of the learned counsel that the cheque in dispute bearing No,931918 had been issued somewhere in November, 1999, in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot lightly be brushed aside. Some receipts have also been attached by the petitioner claiming that some cash amounts had been received by the complainant and said receipts had been executed by him.
Some of the receipts so attached with this petition have not been denied by the complainant. This also establishes that business transactions had been taking place between the parties and the allegation of the complainant that the disputed cheque had been issued only for a single transaction also call for further enquiry. It is yet to be seen during the course of trial as to when the disputed cheque had been issued and as to whether section 489-F, P.P.C. Had been brought on the Statute Book on the crucial date. I would not like to further dwell on the merits of the case, lest, it prejudices the case of any of the sides. Suffice it so say that A from the facts and circumstances of the case, further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is called for.
The offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the principle accused, namely Nadeem Akbar has since been allowed bail by the learned trial Magistrate, which order has not been challenged by the complainant. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, i,e, Imtiaz Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545, Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others 2002 SCM R 442; Muhammad Sadiq v.
Muhammad Nisar and 7 others 2003 PCr.LJ 20 and Mehrban Ali v. The State and another 2004 SCM R 229, proceed on distinguishable facts and do not advance his case for refusal of bail.
6. Resultantly, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Post-arrest .