CH. I FTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J. - Petitioner Ghulam Naibi Shahbaz by way of the instant petition has prayed for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 336 registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. With Police Station Sargodha Road, District Faisalabad on 6.4.2010.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as contained in the F.I.R. Is that he asked the complainant to make favourable statement in Court to Aslam Parvez, an accused in some case and in lieu thereof he would pay her Rs. 13,00,000/- and she was persuaded to do so on his such inducement and the thereafter gave her cheque of the said amount drawn on National Bank of Pakistan Millat Chowk Branch, Faisalabad on 25.3.2010, which on presentation could not be encashed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is annexed to this petition, the copy of the plaint in suit for cancellation of agreement dated 25.3.2009, asserting therein that the cheque No. F-020114, in respect of Account No. 1074-5 has not been issued by him and the same is ineffective upon his rights and so, is liable to cancellation. The suit was brought on 26.6.2010. The question, thus of issuance of the relevant cheque in favour of the complainant lady by him, as alleged by her, and its validity or otherwise is in issue before the competent Civil Court. So, it is very much likely that any verdict regarding the said question in 7 relation to that document and the cheque is to be delivered therefrom. Hence, till such time, the" case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so, the same is covered under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. He is stated to be behind the bars since 21.7.2010 and a previous non-convict.
5. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. It has been pointed out by the prosecution that he has remained an absconder. It has been held by this Court that when the case of an accused, may, otherwise, be found fit for bail being one of further inquiry, he then cannot be detained merely for the reason that he has remained an absconder. However, according to his side, the complainant lady has not correctly mentioned his address in the F.I.R. And in fact, he has not remained an absconder. Anyway, I would avoid to dilate any further upon this aspect of the matter, as it is now hardly required here. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Shahid v. The State (2010 YLR 1177 Lahore), Rana Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and another (2010 P.Crl.L.J. 598 Lahore), Muhammad Riaz v. The State and another (2010 M LD 1063 Lahore) and Mirza Muhammad Akram v. The State and 2 others (2010 YLR 2445 Karachi).
7. In these circumstances of the case, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
8. I therefore, accept this petition and-admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. -2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. -