Complainant's company, ARYIANS International, entered into an agreement with HEDO International
(NGO) for supply of blankets and dry milk, worth Rs, 4,83,50,000/- (Rupees four crore, eighty three lac, and fifty thousand). Three consignments were delivered to HEDO International for which the accused petitioner Shaukat Ali, being Zonal Chief, delivered Cheque No, 0024767 dated 10.3.2008 for Rs, 12,00,000/-, Cheque No, 0024770 dated 12.3.2008 for Rs, 400,000/- and Cheque No, 0024771 dated 12.3.2008 for Rs, 12,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented in the Standard Chartered Bank Islamabad, they were dishonoured. Consequently this case under Sections 419/420/468/471/ 489-F P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No, 253 dated 3.4.2008 of Police Station City Mansehra. In consequence thereof, the accused petitioner was arrested and he was declined bail at the lower forums.
2. I have heard arguments of Syed Mubashir Shah, Advocate, for petitioner, Mr. Shad Mohammad Advocate, for complainant and Mr. Qaisar Rashid, AAG for State. Record has been gone through.
3. Main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the offences are not hit by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. but lesser punishment does not create a vested right for release on bail. Learned counsel for the complainant displayed another F.I.R. No, 317 dated 18.4.2008 registered against the accused petitioner under Sections 489-F/419/420/468/471 P.P.C. on the complaint of Haider Zaman and P.W. Furthermore, Sultan Mohammad has also registered a similar case against the accused petitioner, as per his statement recorded in this, case under Section. 161 Cr.P.C. P.W. Zaheer AIam and Mir Ahnad were employees of the NGO of accused petitioner -who have charged the accused, petitioner for defrauding them.
4. It is well settled principle of law that an accused cannot claim bail in non-available offences as a matter of right even though his case does not fall under prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Reliance is placed on Muhammad Siddique vs. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported in 2002 SCMR 442 and Haji Muhammad Nazir vs. The State reported in 2008 SCMR 807. This is also a rule of law applied by the superior Courts that when a person is involved in a series of cases related to offences badly affecting public at large, in such cases discretion of granting bail may be refused to an accused person. In this respect reliance is placed on Lal Hussain vs. Muhammad Akbar reported in 1995 PCr.LJ 946, Ayaz Ahmad vs. The State reported in 2002 PCr.LJ 965, Jehan Khan vs. The State reported in PLD 2006 Lahore 302 and Mir Agha alias Jamshid vs. Malang reported in 2008 PCrLJ 606.
5. Besides, since it is a fraud case involving procurement of goods worth Rupees twenty eight lacs through deceitful means, the documentary proof of which is available on record and the cheques have also been bounced, likelihood of abscondence of accused too cannot be ruled out because in past too he has remained absconder for some time. Therefore, this is not a case in which discretion should be exercised in favour of accused petitioner in granting him bail. Hence the bail application is dismissed.