IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J. - Petitioner seek pre-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 128/2009, dated 8.3.2009 under Section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Sargodha.
2. As per the contents of the F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque No. 44184554 to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- which was dishonoured.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the instant case. Actually the petitioner had obtained a franchise from the complainant on the basis of an agreement dated 8.9.2008 and in pursuant to the same, the petitioner had given the cheque as security to the complainant for the franchise; that subsequently the franchise of the petitioner had been taken over by the complainant but the complainant had not returned the cheque to the petitioner; that the instant F.I.R. Has been registered after six months on the failure of the complainant to return the cheque; that the petitioner submitted an application to the Bank Manager for the stoppage the payment of the cheque. It is further stated that the complainant had also' filed a civil suit in this connection on 28.11.2008, which is pending and that it is a matter of business transaction, therefore, Section 489-F is not attracted to the case of the petitioner. It is further stated that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. On the other hand, bail petition has vehemently been opposed by the learned State Counsel.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that it is a case of business dealing and transaction between the petitioner and the complainant; therefore, the matter between the petitioner and the complainant is that of civil nature. It is also apparent that the instant cheque had been issued as a security to the complainant for- obtaining the franchise from him under the name of Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited. In this regard the complainant had also, filed a civil suit which is pending before the Civil Court at Sargodha. Moreover, the Investigating. Officer present in Court also states that the complainant is not pursuing his case and is not joining the investigation. In such circumstances, case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. The offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The maximum punishment provided for the offence is three years. Moreover, where the business transactions are admitted the Courts have allowed bail and in this regard, reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Akbar v. The State (2005 P. Crl. L.J. 677), Rana Ehsan v. The State (PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 552), Major Anwar-ul- Haq v.
The State (PLD 2005 Lahore 607) and Haq Nawaz Khan v. The State (2006 YLR 50).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.2009 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.