' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, Mian Muhammad Shabbir petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.1.R. No, 228, dated 10-3-2006, for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case against the petitioner is totally false; that in fact it was a business transaction and the amount so paid by the complainant to the petitioner was an investment and the alleged cheques issued to the complainant were only given as guarantee; that disputed cheques when handed over to the complainant were blank and later on filled in by the complainant himself; that case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than eight months; that case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt; that mere absconsion of the petitioner for about four years is not by itself a ground to refuse him bail. Learned counsel relying on the case of Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCM R 1488) contends that case law is identical to the facts and circumstance of this case, hence, petitioner is entitled for bail.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail application on the grounds that issuance of cheques total amounting to Rs,11,00,000 by the petitioner is admitted and statement of the bank official on record reveals that cheques were dishonoured on presentation; that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for discretionary relief in his favour as the petitioner in the first round of his bail on 15-5-2006 entered into a compromise and handed over two cheques for the whole amount to be paid to the complainant and the bail of the petitioner was confirmed by this Court but the cheques so given were also dishonoured and petitioner disappeared and remained fugitive from law for about four years, meanwhile, pre-arrest bail so granted to the petitioner by this Court has already been recalled. Further contends that challan against the petitioner has been submitted before the learned trial Court and as per observation of the learned trial Court in the order dated 7-10-2010, trial is likely to be concluded within the next three months and from now within about one month.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner very frankly admits that a compromise between the parties took place, and in view of the same pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was confirmed by this Court on 15-5-2006 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2985-B of 2006, he further admits that both the cheques given to the complainant, details of which were duly incorporated in the bail granting order of this Court, had been dishonoured and pre-arrest bail so granted has also been recalled on 11-10-2006 vide Criminal Original No, 75 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain about four years' absconsion of the petitioner from 15-5-2006 to 11-3-2010.
' It is correct that case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And petitioner is behind the bars for a considerable long period that is about nine months and bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception as held in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) but in my humble view the above mentioned conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects that he has misused the relief of bail earlier granted to him, his A cheques given to the complainant have been dishonoured and he remained fugitive from law for about four years that is sufficient to make his case an exception to the general rule and that disentitles him for any discretionary relief in his favour. The case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is quite distinguishable as in Para No, 9 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that petitioner in that case had already returned a huge portion of amount to the complainant but in this case petitioner has not paid a single penny to the complainant as per his undertaking made before this Court on 15-5-2006, hence, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner earliest the possible.
6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.