' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.-The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No,906/2005 dated 15-12-2005 registered under section 489-F P.P.C. With Police Station Gulberg, Lahore.
2. The allegations against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that the complainant belongs to an Agriculturist community. Waseem Bari, present petitioner was class fellow of the complainant in the college five years ago, he met with the complainant and inspired him for making an investment in the Stock Exchange through purchase of shares therein. He assured the complainant that there was no possibility of any loss in GDR business. Under the said dealings, an atmosphere of friendship and trust was developed between them. By taking advantage of this, the present petitioner asked the complainant about the sale of a plot situated in G-III, Johar Town Lahore, by his brother, against a sum of Rs,5,55,00,000. However, the complainant was assured that it was to be given to him against a sum of Rs,4,40,00,00Q. Upon the said assurance, the complainant gave a sum of Rs,40,00,000 to the petitioner. Neither the plot was given nor the amount was returned.
Subsequently, a Punchayat was convened in the house of the petitioner on 25-3-2005 at 4-00 p.m.
In the said Punchayat a sum of Rs, 1,50,00,000 was settled. The present petitioner asked for a time of 7 months for the return of Rs, 1,50,00,000 was given to the complainant. When presented in the Bank, the same was not .Encashed and referred to the drawer. The complainant approached the petitioner and on his assurance, the cheque was again presented in the bank but the payment was not made to the complainant.
3. The post-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 24-6-2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction titled as Waseem Bari v. Shahid Hussain and six others, wherein, on 26-4- 2004. The Court has issued a status quo order restraining the Bank from, encashing any cheque presented in the Bank issued from the cheque book of the petitioner. He alleged in the plaint that the defendants in the suit have forcibly snatched cheque book from him further contended that the petitioner has also got registered a case F.I.R. No,51/2006, dated 24-2-2006 against the complainant. Further contended that the petitioner has not issued the cheque and he has been involved, in the case malafidely. Futher contended that the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, grant of bail to the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as State contending that the petitioner has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for the amount of Rs, 1,50,00,000. Thereafter, after issuing the same, he filed a civil suit against the Bank Managers of different Banks on 6-12-2005 and got status quo order in his favour.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitioner in his suit has admitted his business/dealing in the Stock Exchange and he has also admitted issuance of cheque from his cheque book. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner has issued Cheque No,0647577 of his Account No,01363747601 of Standard Chartered Bank, Gulberg Branch, Lahore. The petitioner in para 5 of his paint has mentioned the disputed cheque issued 'by him of Allied Bank United Sock Exchange Branch and Standard Chartered Bank, Gulberg Branch, Lahore but the cheque in dispute mentioned in this F.I.R. Has not been mentioned in that plaint. He has obtained stay order with regard to the Cheque Nos.06475501 to 550 and 0547551 to 600 but cheque in dispute is not included in these cheques mentioned in the F.I.R.
8. Learned Counsel ' for the complainant has referred some other case F.I.R. Nos. 296/2004, '622/2004 and 489/2004 registered under section 489-F on the complaint of different persons. It seems that the petitioner is in habit of committing fraud'with the people. Although the offence .
Under section 489-F, P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibition as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
Yet in the instant case, the amount of Rs, 1,50,00,000 is involved and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of his absconsion from the country. Though it is settled proposition of law that in the cases which are not covered within the prohibition as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
Grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and in view of above-mentioned circumstances, this case is covered within the exceptional clause of the rule,
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted that whether the petitioner is willing to make the payment of disputed amount to the complainant, could not respond and tried to beat about the bush. There is sufficient material available on the record of this case to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.
10. For the forgoing reasons and without prejudicing to the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed.