Amir Zaheer son of Zafar Rehmani, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 110, dated 25.5.2009, registered at Police Station Sarwar Road, Lahore for an offence under Section 489-F PPC at the instance of Sheryar Ahmad Sheikh son of Mumtaz Ahmad- complainant.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner, according to the F.I.R was that he had issued a cheque bearing No, CD-100/21109919, dated 29.4.2009 for an amount of Rs.28,13,441/- in favour of the complainant, which, on presented to the drawee Bank, had been dishonored.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the cheque in question had been issued by the petitioner during the business dealing with the complainant and it was given as a guarantee/security under the contract dated 1.2.2008, whereupon the complainant put the date as 29.4.2009; that the petitioner had instructed the Bank to stop payment of the said cheque, as the feed supplied by the complainant/company was toxic and complainant was well aware about the stoppage of the cheque; that civil suit for rendition of account as well as for damages was filed by the petitioner much earlier to the registration of the case on 25.2.2009, in which interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court that the cheque could not be presented against the complainant party, which is still pending; that the case has been registered with mala fide intention; that the petitioner wrote various letters to the complainant in this regard; that when the payment of cheque is stopped, it will not come within the ambit of Section 489-F P.P.C. He relies on the case of Iftikhar Akbar V. The State (2008 M.L.D. 159), Tariq Mehmood v. The State (2007 YLR 1709), Amir lqbal Chaudhry V. State (P.L.J. 2009 Crl. Cases (Lahore) 371), Muhammad Asghar v. State and another (P.L.J. 2009 Cr. Cases (Lahore) 392) and Muhammad W. Ayoubi v. State (2007 P.Crl.L.J.
1800).
4. Conversely, the learned for the complainant forcefully opposed the grant of bail by arguing that the petitioner is not entitled to the extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail; that Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that if cheque that endorser signs his name only, the endorsement is said to be "in blank" and if he adds a direction to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument to, or to the order of, a specified person, the endorsement is said to be "in full" and the person so specified is called the endorser of the instrument; that the stoppage of payment of the cheque is indicative of a particular plan of fraudulent intent to get the quench, which is not the object of Section 489-F P.P.C; that the petitioner never intimated the complainant qua stoppage of the cheque and it does not figure any where in the letter dated 10.5.2008' (annex 'F'); that no genuine dispute arose between the parties regarding the encasement of the cheque; that the letter dated 10.2.2009 written by the petitioner and his brother indicates that they were not in a positions to make payment; that the cheque in question was stopped with dishonest intention.
5. The learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor for the State adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the record.
7. It has been observed that according to the petitioner's own showing the obligation is admitted inasmuch as the petitioner had himself filed a suit wherein he alleged that there was a deal between him and the complainant and that he had issued a cheque in favour of the latter. I do not want to enter into the realm of the controversy at this stage; lest it prejudices the case of either of the sides. However, it has been observed that there is a serious allegation of issuing a cheque for a huge amount of Rs. 28,13,441/-. The complainant has been deprived of a huge amount at the hands of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the precedent case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions are different from this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any malice either on the part of the complainant or the police to rope in the petitioner in a false case, which is one of the essential ingredients for the entitlement of extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. In these circumstances, no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and the interim anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 13.7.2009 is hereby recalled.