ORDER HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.442 dated 1-9- 2010 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Sahiwal.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner borrowed Rs.3,97,500 from the complainant and issued cheque for the said amount but the same was dishonoured on presentation, hence, the F.I. R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of instant bail petition contends that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant. Four other F.I.Rs. Of similar nature have already been registered against the petitioner in which he has been granted bail by this Court. It is argued that in the F.I.R. No.473 dated 2-8-2010 the complainant of instant F.I.R. Also levelled allegations that the petitioner borrowed six lacs from him and issued cheque dated 14-7-2010 while in the instant F.I.R. Cheque dated 17-4-2010 has been stated to be given, which shows his mala tide.
It is next contended. That mere pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot disentitle him from concession of bail. No transaction of money ever took place between the parties. It is further argued that the complainant got registered instant case F.I.R. Against the petitioner on the instructions of the persons against whom the litigation is pending at Lahore. It is added that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section, 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this respect is placed upon 2010 M LD 1711. He has been behind the bars for the last two months and his further detention is not required for investigation purposes.
4. On the other hand, the learned ADPP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition on the grounds that there is no mala tide or malice on the part of complainant or police. Issuance of cheque has not been categorically denied by the petitioner. He has also not denied the signatures on the cheque. Four other cases of identical nature have already been registered against the petitioner, which shows that he is habitual offender.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The disputed cheque was dishonoured on 17-4-2010 while the matter was reported to police on 1-9-2010. The complainant also got registered another case F.I.R. No.473 dated 2-8-2010 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Against the petitioner at Police Station Farid Town Sahiwal in which the cheque dated 14-7-2010 was dishonoured. In the said F.I.R. The petitioner has been shown to be a property dealer while in the instant case he is alleged to be dealing in computer accessories. It is also not believable that after lending an amount to the petitioner, which was not returned, the complainant lent more amount to him. No proof has been placed on record, which could suggest that the complainant or his partner was purchasing computer accessories from the petitioner. There is also no proof that the complainant is partner of Zafar Iqbal, his maternal nephew. He has been behind the bars for the last two months and his further detention is not required for further investigation.
Mere pendency of other cases of identical, nature is no ground to refuse the bail unless accused is found convicted in any of them. The maximum punishment provided in section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court..