Petitioner Muhammad Saleem Khan/complainant of case FIR No, 344/07 dated 4.11.2007 under Section 489-F PPC registered at Police Station Qutubpur seeks, cancellation of post arrest bail allowed to Respondent No, 2 vide order dated 20.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessinos Judge, Multan. The allegation against Respondent No, 2 as per FIR is that he issued cheque of Rs, 2,00,000/- in the name of the complainant, which was dishonoured upon the presentation before the concerned bank.
2. It is, inter-alia contended that Respondent No, 2 was declared proclaimed offender by the competent Court of law, which aspect of the matter was not taken note of while passing the impugned order; that respondent played hide and seek with the Courts of law.
Even he moved the learned lower Court for grant of pre-arrest bail which was declined and thereafter, sought the same relief from this Court which was finally dismissed for non prosecution.
Places reliance upon P.Cr.L.J. page 570 to canvass that fugitive from law are not entitled to the grant of bail; that since the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined pre-arrest bail on merits, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed post arrest bail by the same learned counsel. Relies on 2005 P.Cr.L.J page 654 to canvass that the impugned order has been passed without applying judicious mind, arbitrarily besides no reasons have been assigned therein for granting the bail. In support of his contention places reliance upon 2009 SCM R 174.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 submits that complainant is Regional Manager of Electronic Company; that it is a dispute of civil nature; that this cheque was given to the complainant as security; that there is unexplained delay of five months in lodging the FIR; that, on 25.2.2009 he was arrested and was allowed post arrest bail on 12.3.2009; that challan has already been submitted in the Court on 6.3.2009; that maximum punishment provided for the offence is three years R.I. that the respondent has not misused the concession of bail; that principle for grant of post arrest bail as well as cancellation of bail are altogether different; that no material illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was allowed post arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after examining the entire record and applying judicious mind. I find no illegality in the impugned order.
The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that just after the occurrence, Respondent No, 2 became fugitive from law and that proceedings under Sections 87 & 88 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against him and another case u/S. 216 PPC against real brother of respondent, for harbouring Respondent No, 2 was registered. No doubt the person fugitive from law looses some of the rights available to ordinary citizen but to my mind this by itself cannot be a ground either to convict an accused in some offence or refusing bail. There is no complaint/apprehension of hampering prosecution evidence or miss use of concession of bail since the time he has been granted bail. Challan has already been submitted. Nothing is to be recovered from the accused/respondent nor he is required for investigation purpose. By now it is well settled principle of law that grounds for grant of post arrest bail and cancellation of bail are altogether different.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order which being well reasoned, is perfectly in accordance with law. This petition, therefore is hereby dismissed.