The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 789, registered at Police Station A-Division, Okara on 05.11.2007 for an offence under Section 489-F, PPC.
2. According to the allegations, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs, 30,00,000/- in consideration of return of loan but the same on presentation before the bank, was bounced.
3. Bail was urged on the ground that there was delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR, that the petitioner was the complainant of FIR No,429/07 dated 20.09.2001 which was lodged against the present complainant; that the police being in line with the complainant, had called the petitioner in the police station and his son was asked to bring the cheque book whereafter he (petitioner) was coerced to sign it; that the petitioner had since filed a suit for declaration seeking cancellation of the disputed cheque; that he was in jail for the last one year whereas the offence was punishable only up-to 3 years. It was claimed that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail on the authority of law laid down in cases of Muhammad Akhtar v. The State (2006 YLR 3199), Ghulam Hussain v. The State (2008 YLR 762) and Muhammad Saeed v. The State (2007 YLR 1354).
4. Conversely, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed these grounds.
5. Heard. The allegation that the petitioner was called in the police station and was coerced to sign the cheque in dispute, remains bald particularly when no complaint was shown to have been ever made against the police. It is also yet to be seen if the civil suit was invented with ulterior motives to put the claim of the complainant on cross-roads or otherwise. It is true that the offence is punishable up-to 3 years but the fact remains that the same is non-bailable and in non-bailable offences an accused cannot claim bail as of right. In such cases, grant of bail remains within the discretion of the Court and there is no dearth of authority on this point. The cheque was issued for Rs,30,00,000/- and the petitioner has remained adamant and did not pay even a single penny. He is not ready to negotiate with the complainant either. The offence under Section 489-F, PPC was introduced to facilitate the repayment of the loans and discharge financial obligations. The claim that there were business transactions between the complainant and the petitioner rather leads me to hold that the cheque was issued for reasons. In the circumstance, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. While dismissing his application for bail I direct the learned trial Judge to show his presence in Court and conclude the trial within a period of three months using all coercive measures if found necessary to secure presence of the PWs.
6. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance.