Basit Islam son of Abdul Salam Qureshi, the petitioner, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 98/06 dated 11.3.2006 registered at Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore,.for an offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. The allegation in the FIR registered, at the instance of Abid Hussain Shah son of Muhammad Sadiq Shah, the complainant was that the petitioner who is a property dealer and runs his business under the name and style of Ittefaq Property at Shalimar Arcade. Shalimar Link Road, Moghalpura, Lahore in order to usurp their money induced him and his companions namely Muhammad Ilyas son of Niaz Ahmad and Younas Ali son of Jan Muhammad to invest their money in the property business when his fraudulent practices were exposek the complainant and his companions demanded their money which was Rs, 7,46,000/-. Basit petitioner made repeated lame excuses to eat up their money, however, finally in order to liquidate his liability he issued two cheques for Rs, 5,80,000/- and Rs, 1,66,000/- respectively drawn on Habib Bank Limited Old Campus Branch in his favour on presentation Cheque No, 61862840 for Rs, 5,80,000/- was dishonoured on 7.3.2006. Resultantly the instant FIR had been recorded.
3.The petitioner was arrested on 11.3.2006 and is in custody ever since. His post-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 5.4.2006. Hence the instant petition.
4.I have heard Syed Zaheer Saghir, advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Azhar Siddique Cheema, advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant as also Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Shami, Advocate for the Sate and have perused the record brought by Noor Muhammad ASI, Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore.
5. During examination of the record it has been observed that the petitioner has been taking divergent stands at different times. At one stage he stated that he had been compelled by the SHO to execute the cheques in question while he was an illegal custody at the police station whereas on another occasion he stated that since the complainant was a police official; therefore, he forcibly procured the cheques from him. The petitioner has also filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a stay order against the presentation of cheques. The filing of civil suit by the petitioner instead of strengthening his case, rather weakens the same. It is a matter of common observation that recourse is made to Civil Courts after committing fraud with a view to lending some legitimacy to the fraudulent act. I am not suggesting that it is a universal practice but in most of the cases this modus operandi is resorted to. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a number of precedents wherein it has been held that since the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., therefore, bail is to be allowed as a matter of course. These precedents do not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as each criminal case is to be adjudged on its own merit. There is conversely ample authority available that the mere fact that the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. by itself is not sufficient to grant concession of post-arrest bail. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
6. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.