' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Waqas Sajid, the petitioner, by submitting the instant application seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No, 315 of 2008, dated 8-10-2008, registered at Police Station Sarwar Road, Lahore in respect of the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. Briefly put the prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R lodged on the written application of Azam Rasheed, the complainant, is that the petitioner issued a cheque for an amount of Rs,20,00,000 in favour of the complainant which on presentation before the concerned Bank was bounced.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque in question was executed as a guarantee to ensure the payment of a loan obtained by Tipu Sultan, the co-accused, therefore, the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., is not made out against the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the agreement, dated 14-7-2008, executed between the complainant and Sajid Nizami, father of the petitioner. He adds that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 25-3-2009, but the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In support of his arguments learned counsel 'has placed his reliance on the cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 497), Nasrullah Khan v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 1052), Zahoor Illahi and another v.
Shahzad Ahmad and another (2007 PCr.LJ 1056) and Rashid Maqbool v. Mujahid Butt and another (2004 YLR 2251).
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition tooth and nail by submitting that the petitioner and his co- accused have defrauded dozens of people in a similar style and fashion and dozens of cases stand registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. In order to expound his contention, learned counsel for the complainant states that the petitioner is involved in as many as sixteen cases of similar nature, whereas his uncle Tipue Sultan stands involved in eighteen cases registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. He further adds that the petitioner's co-accused/real brother Awais Sajid is also required to the police in eighteen cases. Learned counsel further maintains that after registration of the instant case the petitioner remained fugitive from law, and consequently he was declared a proclaimed offender and there is every likelihood of his abscondence in case he is granted concession of post-arrest bail. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, petitioner's co-accused have already absconded in this case and the trial is being delayed due to the fact that non-bailable warrants are being issued against the petitioner's co-accused.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner had issued a cheque against an amount of Rs,20,00,000 in favour of the complainant, but the same was dishonoured. So there is documentary evidence against the petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner's plea that the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C. Is concerned, the same requires deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at this stage. Even otherwise under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.
7. After registration of the case the petitioner did not opt to surrender himself before the police, rather he became a fugitive from law, consequently, after completion of due process of law, he was declared a proclaimed offender. He was arrested by an official of Police Station Defence Area., Lahore, on 22-3-2009, vide Report No,16, which has been made part of the police file. A perusal of the said rapt reveals that before his arrest the petitioner had already been declared proclaimed offender in three other cases as well. It is true that the prosecution is not quipped with any proof that the petitioner stands convicted in any of the sixteen cases registered against him, but the fact remains that the petitioner is not a man of clean slate, rather he stands involved in sixteen criminal cases of similar nature. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced a list of criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. Besides that he has produced photocopies of the F.I.Rs, registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. A perusal of the said F.I.Rs, reveals that the complainants of the said cases have been bilked in almost similar fashion. It is true that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and normally in such like cases grant of bail is a rule, but in exceptional cases bail can be refused, even in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Considering the credential of the petitioner, there is every likelihood of his abscondence in case of grant of bail in his favour.
Admittedly the petitioner's co-accused have failed to surrender before the process of law and non- bailable warrants have been issued by the learned trial Court. Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful for the petitioner.
8. Consequently, While relying upon the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442) and Muhammad Afzal v. The State C.P. No, 59-L/2006 decided on 15-3- 2006, the application in hand is dismissed with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months positively after receipt of copy of this order which shall be dispatched by the office immediately. For achieving the said target the trial Court can consider the advisability of separating the case of the petitioner from his co-accused. In case he fails to conclude the trial within three months, then the petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh application before this Court directly provided he himself does not delay the conclusion of the trial.