ORDER SIIAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Abdul Sattar, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.595, dated 9-10-2010, for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at. Police Station, Margala, Islamabad on the complaint of Raja Muhammad Saneel Abbasi.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by the complainant is that the petitioner issued four cheques to the complainant in the backdrop of purchase of a car Suzuki Liana, Model 2006 for Rs.9,00,000 which were presented by the complainant before the bank concerned for encashment on three different dates and the above-said cheques were bounced for insufficiency of funds.
Hence the instant case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case with a cooked up version of the complainant and the allegations alleged are patently false, the petitioner had filed a civil suit for Rendition of Accounts against the complainant earlier then the registration of the above-said F.I.R. Wherein it has been contended by the petitioner, being the plaintiff, that the complainant Raja Muhammad Sabeel Abbasi despite having received advance Cheques had failed to handover the original documents of the vehicle to the petitioner/ plaintiff, the complainant had issued a receipt, duly signed by him and the petitioner, showing that the monetary dispute between the parties stood resolved the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with imprisonment of three years or with fine which does not fall within the prohibition of section 497 Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such like offence is a rule the petitioner's case in view of the attending circumstances, is open to further inquiry within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Conversely, learned standing counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the instant bail petition with the contention that the petitioner had purchased a car, Suzuki Liana for Rs.9,00,000 from the complainant who runs a car showroom with the name and style of "Akash Motors"; the petitioner did not pay the consideration amount to the complainant and instead issued three cheques, one after the other with intermissions; the complainant firstly presented the cheque of Rs.4,00,000 for encashment before the bank on 26-8-2010 which was returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficiency of funds, second cheque of Rs.3,00,000 was presented before the bank on 31-8-2010 which also met the same fate, coupled with the fact that the drawer had ordered "stop payment" of the same, the last cheque of Rs.2,00,000 was presented before the bank on 31-10-2010 but no funds were available in the drawee's account and it was also returned un-enchased by the bank; the petitioner has repeated the offence fearlessly without caring for the consequence of his criminal act so by his contumacious behavior, he seems to be a habitual offence, the receipt relied upon by the petitioner pertains to a Honda Car whereas the dispute in the instant F.I.R. Relates to the purchase of a car, Suzuki Liana; the civil suit was instituted by the petitioner much later than the application moved by the complainant before the S.P.
Islamabad for registration of a criminal case against him, so the institution of the civil suit exhibits the dishonesty and mala fide intention of the petitioner : lastly, submits that the petitioner may not be released on bail notwithstanding the fact that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As his case is not open to further inquiry.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner himself has admitted in the civil suit for cancellation, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction, filed against Raja Muhammad Sabeel Abbasi, the complainant that he, (plaintiff) had purchased the following vehicles from the defendant/complainant (Raja Muhammad Sabeel Abbasi):--
(i) Mitsubishi Lancer for Rs.3,50,000
(ii) Suzuki Liana for Rs.9,00,000
(iii) Vitz for Rs.11,50,000 The Suzuki Liana appearing at Serial No.2 is the car in question which had been purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,00,000 from the complainant and instead of making payment of the consideration amount, he issued the above-said cheques in the name of the complainant knowingly that he did not have sufficient funds to meet with the face value of the same. If an offender dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of a legal obligation knowingly that it shall be bounced on presentation, shall be deemed to have committed an offence within the scope of section 489-F, P.P.C. And if the accused adopts the plea that he had sufficient funds for encashment of the cheque issued by him, the burden to prove the same, will be upon the accused. I have gone through the objection memos issued by the bank which indicate that the above-said cheques had been bounced mainly for the reason that the funds in the relevant account were insufficient. Having dishonestly issued the above-said cheques in regular intervals with mala fide intention and being in knowledge that sufficient funds were not available, the petitioner has proved himself to be a habitual offender.
7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence being punishable with imprisonment of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Should be deemed as a bailable offence as in such like offences, the grant of bail is a rule and rejection thereof an exception, I am afraid, cannot be entertained. I advantageously rely upon "Shamed Ahmad v. The State" (2009 SCM R 174), and observe that an accused notwithstanding the punishment of imprisonment, not falling under the prohibitory clause, cannot be admitted to bail as a matter of right overlooking the attending facts and circumstances of the case. For seeking bail in a non-bailable offence, it is incumbent that the accused shall establish though prima facie, the fact that his case is open to further inquiry within the meaning of section 497, (2), Cr.P.C. The prosecution case against the petitioner brims with incriminating connecting evidence and he obviously has committed a non-bailable offence, falling outside the scope of further inquiry as contemplated under the above-said provision of law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is dismissed.