' SYED AKHLAQ AHMED, J.---Muhammad Nawaz petitioner/accused seeks his post affect bail in case F.I.R. No,338 dated 6-7-2010 under section 489-F P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Taxila, District Rawalpindi.
2. Prosecution case is that Muhammad Rafique complainant/ respondent No,2 purchased land measuring 100 kanal situated in chak Fateh Khan Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock from Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Hayat/petitioner who after receiving Rs,9,00,000 (Rs, nine lacs) put his signatures/thumb impressions and issued three cheques of Allied Bank Ltd. Taxila but did not hand over the land. First Cheque No,5961710 dated 1-3-2010 was of Rs,3,00,000 second Cheque No,5961712 dated 3-4-2010 was of Rs,3,00,000 and third cheque No,5961711 dated 3-5-2010 was of Rs,3,00,000. When presented these cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. It is stated that the petitioner has committed fraud and threw the complainant in financial crisis, Legal action should be taken against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the contents of the F.I.R. Are taken on its face value, it was a business transaction. The petitioner being an illiterate person, he issued these cheques with his thumb impressions as he was maintaining a photo account. These cheques could not be legally encashed under the Bank Rules in the absence of the petitioner before the bank.
According to the police investigation Muhammad Rafique/complainant has so far received Rs,750,000 from the petitioner through Muhammad Khan property dealer. He has also kept with him Santro Car of the petitioner in lieu of remaining Rs,1,50,000. In this way the whole amount of Rs,9,00,000 in dispute stood paid to the complainant. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be admitted to post arrest bail.
' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2005 PCr.LJ 144 Lahore 2005 SCMR 306, PLD 2005 Lahore 607 and 2009 SCMR 1488.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed this bail application.
' He also produced Muhammad Rafique complainant/respondent No,2 before the Court who told the Court that he is ready to state on the Oath of Holy Quran that till to date he has not been returned even a single rupee out of the paid amount of Rs,9,00,000 either by the petitioner or by Muhammad Khan or by Noor Elahi property dealers. He further deposed that the petitioner as well as the aforesaid persons, in league with the I.O. Have again cheated him by giving false affidavits to the police showing that the whole defrauded amount of Rs,9,00,000 has been paid and the I.O.
Without any verification from him accepted their plea.
5. Confronted with this situation Khaliq Dad A.S.-I./Investigating Officer present in court stated that he called the complainant thrice to join the police investigation but he did not come to him. Due to this he relying upon the affidavits furnished by Muhammad Khan and Noor Elahi property dealers reached to the conclusion that the amount of dishonoured cheques of Rs,9,00,000 has been repaid by the petitioner to the complainant through the said persons.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. Issuance of three cheques worth Rs,3,00,000 each by the petitioner to Muhammad Rafique complainant and its dishonour by the bank is an admitted fact between the parties. Memorandum of return of these cheques issued by the bank reveal that these cheques were dishonoured by the bank with the following objections:--
(i) Account closed
(ii) Photo account
8. The aforesaid objections of the bank prima facie establish that the petitioner had no intention to pay Rs,9,00,000 to the complainant/ respondent No,2 from the day one. He defrauded the complainant of his huge amount by issuing bogus cheques of his account which was already closed and further which was a photo account. The act of the petitioner amounts to financial murder of the complainant. So he does not deserve any leniency. The finding of the I.O. That the whole defrauded amount of Rs,9,00,000 has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant through Muhammad Khan and Noor Elahi property dealers is also without any basis. The affidavits given by Muhammad Khan and Noor Elahi property dealers to the I.O. Do not bear the signature of Muhammad Rafique complainant/respondent No,2 any where. Perusal of the police file shows that the I.O. Never issued any notice to Muhammad Rafique complainant to appear before him or to join the investigation. Muhammad Rafique complainant categorically denied before this court to have received any amount from the petitioner or from Muhammad Khan and Noor Elahi, property dealers. He has further informed the court that the stated Santro Car of the petitioner is standing on the show room and is not in his possession. Khaliq Dad A.S.-I./I.O. Has thus conducted a dishonest investigation of this case without joining Muhammad Rafique complainant in the investigation and gave an incorrect finding to damage the prosecution case. RPO Rawalpindi is directed to proceed against him on administrative side under intimation to D. R. (Judicial) of this Bench.
9. No doubt the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, grant of bail in such like cases is not a rule of universal application. Each case has to be seen on its own facts and circumstances:-- ' "Muhammad Akram v. The State", 2008 MLD 303 (Lahore); Shameel Ahmad v. The State 2009 SCMR 174, Muhammad ' Afzal Javed v. Muhammad Akram and another, 2010 PCr.R 622 (Lahore),"Muhammad Siddique v.
Imtiaz Begum and 2 others", 2002 SCMR 442 and "Muhammad Naeem v. The State" 2010 PCr.LJ 504 (Lahore) relied upon.
' There appears no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner as accused in this case. The citations relied, upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. I therefore, find that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.. His bail application, therefore, stands dismissed.