Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Amir Iqbal Chaudhry petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 317 dated 7.4.2008 registered under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Chung District Lahore on the application of Muhammad Rashid.
2. The brief allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner issued two cheques amounting to Rs, 5,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant which on presentation were dishonoured by the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide intention by complainant who wrongly got mentioned in the FIR that the disputed amount had been given as loan to the petitioner. He has referred to two agreements dated 15.1.2008 and 15.3.2008 to show that this was a business transaction and the complainant was a shareholder in the workshop and had to get only profit from the share. According to the learned counsel, there is no mention in the agreements that this amount had been advanced to the petitioner as loan. He further submits that prior to the registration of the case the petitioner filed -a civil suit challenging the above-said documents and after receipt of notice of the above-said suit the petitioner in connivance with the local police has falsely involved the petitioner in this case, who is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR and the complainant had no motive to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. As regards delay in the FIR, it is contended that firstly the complainant had approached the SHO who refused to register the case and then he applied the higher authorities, but on their refusal, the complainant filed an application under Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C. before the Justice of Peace/Addl: Sessions Judge for registration of the case and when it came to the notice of the petitioner he filed a civil suit. In such circumstances he cannot take benefit of the above-said civil suit.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it is clear that there is a contradiction between the claim of the agreements and the allegation in the FIR. According to the agreement the complainant was shareholder in the workshop and he was entitled to one-half share of the profit but in the FIR it has been mentioned that the same had been disbursed to the petitioner as a loan, which is not mentioned in the previous agreements dated 15.1.2008 and 15.3.2008. Admittedly a civil suit regarding the dispute in hand is also pending between the parties in the Civil Court. The petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 23.4.2008 and the challan has also been submitted in the Court on 30.4.2008. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of any further investigation and none of the offences against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I see no exceptional circumstances to refuse bail to the petitioner.
Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.