' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Through this petition filed under section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,341/2010 dated 2-4-2010 for an offence under section 489-F P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghalib Market District Lahore.
2. It has been averred in the F.I.R. That the petitioner issued three cheques all dated 4-11-2006 in all valuing Rs,10,25,000 which bounced on being presented on 26-3-2007.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheques referred to in the F.I.R. Were not issued by the petitioner in his individual capacity rather those were issued by him as Director of a Company working under the name and style of "Taj Textile Mills Limited". That account is in the name of the Company and not in the name of the petitioner. That there is a genuine bona fide business dispute between the parities and a civil suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the complainant and is pending adjudication before the Trial Court. That cheques were issued as measure of security and the complainant knew that cheques referred to in the F.I.R. Could not be encashed unless the official stamp of the company was affixed on those cheques. Lastly, it is submitted that two demand drafts favouring the complainant for the outstanding amount have already been received by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mazhar Iqbal v. The State 2006 YLR 406, Ali Murtaza v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1773 and Major Anwar ul Haq v. The State PLD 2005 Lahore 607.
4. Learned DPG opposes the petition and submits that considerations for grant of bail before arrest are different from considerations for grant of bail after arrest. That a bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that signatures of the petitioner on the cheques are admitted and he is guilty of having committed an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
5. After adopting the arguments of learned DPG, learned counsel for respondent No,2/complainant submits that Demand Drafts referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to a different transaction and have nothing to do with the cheques referred to in the F.I.R. That civil and criminal proceedings can proceed side by side. In support of his contentions learned counsel relies on "Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174), "Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another" (2008 SCMR 839), "Muhammad Nadeem v. The State" (2006 YLR 3043), "Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State (2006 YLR 23) and "Ibrahim Ghulam Mustafa v. The State" (2007 PCr.LJ 1748).
6. There is an inordinate delay in filing of F.I.R. For which no plausible explanation is forthcoming.
Three cheques referred to in the F.I.R. Were issued on 4-11-2006 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 2- 4-2010. In the instant petition it has been alleged by the petitioner that F.I.R. Has been lodged by the complainant with mala fide intention and with ulterior motives. A perusal of record revealed that cheques were dishonored for ' the reason that rubber stamp of the company was not affixed and not for reasons of insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner.
7. It is an admitted position that offence under section 48-F, P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause and carriers a maximum punishment of three years. The apex Court in case titled Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 34 has held that grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal an exception. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21-5-2010 stands confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,11,00,000 with one surety in the A like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.