' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the complainant was an employee of the petitioner; that complainant stole the cheque, filled the same and then submitted in the bank; that concocted and false story has been given in the F.I.R,; that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that three co- accused named in the F.I.R. Have been declared innocent; that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub clause 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to bail.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant present in court can state on oath that he never knew the petitioner prior to this bargain; that this is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2006 Lahore 302, 2007 YLR 309, 2008 YLR 760 and 2009 PCr.LJ 825.
3. Learned DPG adds that in fact the cheque was not dishonoured by the bank but it was stated that the funds are insufficient in the account of the petitioner and bank never objected that the signatures of the petitioner are forged one.
3-A. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no ulterior motive or mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The cheque in question has been returned to the complainant by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. It was never stated by the bank that signatures of the petitioner are forged one. This is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out. This petition stands dismissed.