1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this order, I propose to dispose of both the above titled pre arrest bail applications of the applicant, which relate to Crime Nos.2 of 2008 and 4 of 2008 of Police Station Aziz Bhatti, for commission of offence punishable under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. ' In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 1-1-2008 complainant Usman son of Muhammad Ibrahim has lodged these FIRs against the applicant giving therein the details of the fraud committed by him by issuing two cheques, one of Rs,2,25,000 being subject matter of Crime No,2/2008, and the other of Rs,1,80,000, being subject matter of crime No,4/2008, which were dishonoured on presentation in Bank. In both these cases applicant was admitted to interim pre- arrest bail vide order dated 28-4-2008.
3. ' The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence for which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And it is yet to be seen whether the applicant has committed the offence attributed to him or his involvement in two crimes is due to mala fide of the complainant. In such circumstances, he submits that the interim pre arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 28-4-2008 may be confirmed.
4. ' Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, learned Addl. A.-G. Sindh after going through the police papers submits that the two dishonoured cheques, admittedly issued by the applicant are available in the police papers, which fully corroborate the case of the complainant that applicant has committed offence punishable under section 489-F, P.P.C. Therefore, no mala fide can be assigned to the complainant or the police in the involvement of the applicant in the commission of such crimes.
5. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. The Courts, while dealing with such type of cases cannot remain oblivious of the increasing trend of cheating and fraud with innocent people, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the lodging of F.I.R. By the complainant against the applicant is male fide. There is no denial of the fact that the two bounced cheques were issued by the applicant to the complainant. In such circumstances, the allegations made in the F.I.R. Cannot be readily discarded to accommodate the applicant to be admitted to pre arrest bail. It may not be out of place to mention here that grant of bail in the cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is a rule and refusal is an exception, but in the present scenario when the trend of such crimes has increased considerably, in my opinion the applicant is not entitled for confirmation of interim pre- A arrest bail.
7. ' This being the position, both these pre arrest bail applications are dismissed and the orders for grant of pre arrest bail dated 28-4-2008 are recalled.