' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.587 of 2007, dated 11-9-2007, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of the complainant was dishonoured when presented to the Bank for encashment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a number of cheques of the petitioner were stolen and in the said regard concerned Bank had also been intimated; that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner; that the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 489-F, P.P.C. And that the petitioner was not required for any further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner lodged case F.I.R. No. 1202 of 2007 at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad against Rana Zahid, his ex-employee for stealing some cheques including the one which is subject-matter of the instant case. The documents on the record reveal that the petitioner had intimated the Bank regarding theft of cheques and had also instructed the Bank not to encash cheques including the one issued in the name of the complainant. Prima facie the assertion of the petitioner that cheque had been stolen appears to be correct. Further, the cheque in question was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of the petitioner and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 13-12-2007 reveals that the signatures on the cheque in question does not tally with the specimen signatures of the petitioner. Thus, the report has been returned in the negative which implies that prima facie the cheque in question was not issued/signed by the petitioner. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Since the evidence is documentary in nature which has already been taken into possession by the police, therefore, the corpus of the petitioner is not required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 29-10-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.