SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J. ~ The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case- F.I.R. No. 349/06, dated 23.08.2006 registered under Section 489- F, P.P.C, at Police Station Safdarabad.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R, the petitioner owned an amount of Rs. 5,46,000/-. According to. The complainant, when he made a demand for return of his money, petitioner on 29.06.2006 issued a cheque No. 41769752 to be drawn on drawee; United Bank Limited, Safdarabad Branch. According to the complainant he deposited the said cheque in his account No. 5985-7, National Bank of Pakistan, Safdarabad Branch. After 4/5 days Bank Officer of the National Bank informed the complainant that his cheque to the drawn on United Bank Limited, Safdarabad Branch had been dishonored, In the above background the complainant field a petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana. Sahib on whose orders the instant' F.I.R, was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2006 and since then he has been behind the bars. The learned counsel submits that though originally subject-matter of the .F.I.R, related to civil law but with the passage of time and different socio/economic developments dishonourment of cheque has been made part of our criminal law, therefore, now such like cases/bail matters have to be decided on the basis of principles which govern criminal administration of justice in the country. The learned counsel further submits that statements before police are not admissible while considering the bail application. He also contends that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment if the case is made out on merits, In this regard the learned counsel refers to PLD 1995 SC 34.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab submits that petitioner himself conceded during the course of investigation his guilt of dishonestly issuance of cheque which was ultimately dishonored, therefore, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer, petitioner was declared guilty. The learned counsel for the complainant refers to 2006 YLR 1105, 2006 MLD 330, PLD 2006 Lahore 434 and PLD 2006 Lahore 752. On the basis of finding in, the above judgment, he has opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab "and learned counsellor the complainant.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that since challan has already been submitted before the Trial Court; therefore, it is not an appropriate stage to grant bail to the petitioner. To support his point he refers to case-law mentioned in the preceding para, In 2006 YLR 1105, it was observed that since the trial, had already commenced, it was not proper stage to dilate upon the factual aspects of the. Case lest it may prejudice the case of either party, In 2006 M.L.D 330, the F.I.R, was not registered only under Section 489-F, P.P.C., it was registered under Section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, under Section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002 and Section 489-F, P.P.C. For the above reason, it was noted by the Court that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
7. The facts mentioned in above two cases are different than the present case, In the present case formal trial has not commenced yet though the challan has been submitted in the Court. Similarly only offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 489-F, P.P.G, and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P,C.
8. The investigation in this case as noted above has already been completed and the petitioner has been declared fully involved in the commission 'of offence. However, it is not a case of learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner issued the cheque dishonestly or. Otherwise or whether he is innocent or guilty. His only prayer is that his case should be decided on the touchstone of known principles which govern the law of bail. According to our practice bail in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C, is granted as a rule, it is refused only in exceptional cases. Present case cannot be treated as an exceptional case in its facts and circumstances.
9. The petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2006, therefore, he has already served in jail for more than five months. The maximum punishment provided under Section 489-F, P.P.C, is three years, therefore, substantial part of three years has already been spent by the petitioner in jail and trial has not commenced yet. It is well-known doctrine which is also well practiced that if a case is made out for grant of bail, the bail should not be refused or withheld as an instrument of punishment, It is the Trial Court which has ta finally decide the guilt or innocence of an accused person, before that stage, every accused is to be treated innocent; he can only be kept behind the bars when it is so required under the law. Moreover the petitioner is not reported to have any other case registered against him.
10. In view of above discussion, 1 find sufficient grounds in the present case to allow this bail, application of the petitioner subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lac rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Area Magistrate.
Baif after arrest granted.