' MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.---Hafiz Nauman-petitioner seeks pre- arrest bail in case No,22 dated 27-4-2007 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered in police station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal.
2. As alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is having business of computers, etc., and his containers were struck up for clearance of dues. He requested the complainant to give him an amount of Rs,15,00,000 for getting his containers released, upon which latter paid an amount of Rs,8,00,000.
The petitioner in lieu therefore issued cheques No,4278964 and 4278966 valuing Rs,4,00,000 each to be encashed on 10-1-2006 and 16-1-2006 respectively from his account in Askari Bank High Street, Sahiwal. The complainant presented the cheques to the concerned bank for encashment on the relevant dates, but same could not be encashed for want of sufficient amount. Thereupon, the petitioner asked the complainant to wait for some time and that he would deposit the amount in his account. On 7-4-2006 the complainant deposited the cheques in National Bank Limited, Tech Branch, Lahore, for getting the amount transferred from Askari Bank Sahiwal to his own account but the cheques were dishonoured for lack of sufficient amount. Thereupon, present case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits the issuance of cheques to the complainant, however, he contends that the parties were having a joint business of import/export in which the petitioner suffered loss, therefore, he could not arrange the amount for encashment of cheques to the complainant. According to learned counsel, another case F.I.R. No,110, dated 1-2-2006 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Was got registered by Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi son of the complainant at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, compromise was effected and all the matters were resolved between the parties. On the statement of Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 29-4-2006 the petitioner was allowed pre-arrest bail in the said case.
But despite the settlement, the complainant had got registered the instant case against the petitioner with mala fide using the cheques in question lying with him. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for about one year; that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497-Cr.P.C. And that no useful purpose would be served by his father detention.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vigorously opposed the bail petition and have contended that the petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. For registration of case against the complainant his son Aamir Mumtaz and one Khalil Ahmed for having stolen the cheques from his cheque book, but that application has been dismissed. They have further contended that he is a habitual offender and some other cases of similar nature are registered against him in different police stations.
Photostat copy of case F.I.R. No,130, dated 7-4-2006 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered in Police Station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal and copy of F.I.R. No, 707, dated 21-11-2005 under sections 406/506, P.P.C. Registered in Police Station Garden Town Lahore have been submitted in support of their contention.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As mentioned above, it has been admitted by the petitioner that cheques in question were issued to the complainant and same were dishonoured for lack of sufficient amount in his account. Certified copy of bail order dated 29-4-2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,110/2006 Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, is placed on the file, perusal of which shows that the petitioner was allowed pre-arrest bail on the statement of Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi son of the complainant that compromise had been effected and he had no objection to the grant of bail to him. There is nothing in the statement of Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi that all the business disputes between the parties have been resolved. No doubt it has been A settled by now by the superior Courts that in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, grant of bail is rule and refusal an exception, but case of the petitioner is of an exceptional nature and is not covered by this principle of law. He owes huge amount of Rs,8,00,000 to the complainant and does not intend to pay back the same despite an offer made by learned counsel for the complainant before this Court that he may be allowed to pay the amount in instalments. Besides the above, he is involved in some other cases of similar nature which speaks about his conduct. In view of the above, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the bail petition is dismissed.