' HABIB ULLAH SHAKIR, J.-- Through the instant petition, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,324/2009 dated 29-4-2009 registered under section 489-F, 'P.P.C. At Police Station Defence-A, Lahore.
2. The prosecution story as per F.I.R. Is that the petitioner issued cheque to the complainant amounting to Rs,30,00,000 towards payment of outstanding amount which was dishonoured when the complainant presented the same to the concerned bank for its encashment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioners is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case with mala fide intention of complainant and local police. In fact, one Senior Police Officer who hails from the same Bradri of the petitioner, made some investment in the business of the petitioner and the petitioner with the business concern has been giving his due share from the profit and ultimately he has paid the more amount to the said police officer than the amount invested by him but he was more required for the purpose of investigation. Further detaining petitioner in jail will serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for complainant have opposed this bail arguing that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of having issued the impugned cheque in favour of the complainant which was subsequently dishonoured. The petitioner is involved in 22 cases. He is habitual and hardened criminal. The petitioner has been found guilty by the police during course of investigation of the case. There is sufficient incriminating material available on the record against the petitioner. So the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, this occurrence has taken place on 25-1-2008 while the case was reported to the police on 29-3-2009 with the delay of one year and three months. This fact creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. It is pertinent to mention here that my learned brother Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry-J has granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner in five cases vide order dated 27- 4-2009 and as such the petitioner has been granted post-arrest bail in 20-cases of similar nature.
The offence under section 489-F P.P.C. Entails maximum punishment of three years. It goes without saying that offences which entail maximum punishment of 10 years, the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Moreover, it is also well established principle that mere issuance of a cheque which is subsequently dishonoured does not constitute an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Unless the same is issued dishonestly and for payment of loan or for discharging of any obligation. Question of dishonest issuance of cheque and its dishonest dishonouring could also not to be determined at bail stage. Just for the purpose of keeping the accused in jail without any further investigation, bail could not be refused when no further investigation was to be made. Bail could not be refused when no recovery of amount under the cheque is yet to be made. Though the offence was not bailable but this Court cannot ignore the fact that he offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and investigation of the case has been completed. Keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period will serve no useful IA purpose. So far as the contention of learned D.P.G. That 22 cases of similar nature, have been registered against the petitioner and he is desperate and habitual is concerned, it is noted that in any of the said cases the petitioner has not been convicted so far and as such petitioner may not be treated as desperate and hardened criminal. All these facts make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. So this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to this furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees on lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.