' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Asim Saddiqui son of Zahid Hussain Saddiqui, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 195 of 2005, dated 26-5-2005, registered at Police Station Shadman, Lahore for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Babar Khan, Sales and Recovery Manager of Ghauri Chicks, Lahore was involved in the business of chicks with the petitioner; a cheque for Rs,1,76,000 had been handed over by him to the petitioner; on presenting the said cheque the same had been dishonoured. As a result whereof the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail. He was allowed ad interim bail, however, his bail application was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, vide order, dated 14-7-2005. Hence this petition.
4. On 21-7-2005 when the petitioner had been admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court he had given a solemn undertaking that if during the course of investigation any amount was found to be due against him he would pay the same without any hesitation. It was primarily this undertaking which had prompted me to extend him extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Syed Ahmad Raza S.-I., Incharge Investigation, Shadman, Lahore.
6. At the very outset the Investigating Officer submitted that he had conducted a thorough investigation in the matter and was of the opinion that basically, it was a matter of rendition of accounts between the parties who had been indulging in colossal monetary transactions. He further added that during the course of investigation he had come to the conclusion that it is the complainant who owes some money to the petitioner.
7. In view of the afore-said opinion rendered by the Investigating Officer the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the State has not apposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bailgranted to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order, dated 21-7-2005 is here by confirmed.