SYED AKHLAQ AHMED, J.---Aamir Hussain petitioner/ accused seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 924 dated 21-11-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, New Town Rawalpindi.
2. Prosecution case is that Atta Ullah/complainant is a Whole Sale Dealer of flour, gram flour (baisan), superfine flour (maida), sugar and ghee at Bazar Dalgaran Rawalpindi. Muhammad Aamir Hussain son of Zaheer Hussain residence of H. No. B-24 "Ahsan City Home" 11-C/1 North Karachi presently resident of Rawalpindi purchased from him flour, sugar, grain flour (baisan), ghee and. Superfine flour (maida) of Rs.9,00,000 (Rupees nine lac) against cheque No. 5076362 of Bank Al-Habib Ltd., Murree Road Branch by mentioning, the date as 11-9-2009. The complainant deposited this cheque in his account maintained at Allied Bank Ltd. Chowk Dalgaran Branch Rawalpindi which was returned on 12-9-2009 with the objection 'funds insufficient'. The petitioner presented this cheque again in the same bank which was again returned on 30-9-2009 by annexing dishonour slip with the objection of `funds insufficient'. It is alleged that Muhammad Aamir Hussain has committed fraud and cheating misappropriating his food stuff worth lacs of rupees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. The actual facts are that the complainant got registered another false F.I.R. No. 23 dated 12-1-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. In Police Station, New Town Rawalpindi in which the petitioner was arrested on 12-1-2009 and sent to the judicial lock up. Since his arrest, he is behind the bars in the aforesaid case. So question of issuance of any cheque on 11-9-2009 does not arise at all. There is delay of two months in the lodging, of the F.I.R.
Which has not been explained. The offence does not fall under the Prohibitory Clause of, section 497, Cr.P.C. There is contradiction in the amount mentioned in the F.I.R. And the one incorporated in the recovery memo of cheque and dishonour slip by the police which makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be admitted to post arrest bail.
In support of his contention, leaned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2004 YLR 2227 [Lahore] and 2006 YLR 1891 [Lahore].
4. On the other hand Atta Ullah complainant/respondent No.2 argued his case himself as the learned DPG on behalf of the State did not bother to attend the Court despite wait.
The complainant produced copy of F.I.R. No. 23 dated 12-1-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Got registered by him against the petitioner in Police Station New Town Rawalpindi, copy of F.I.R. No. 26 dated 13-1-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Got registered by one Shujat Forooq against the petitioner in Police Station, New Town, copy of F.I.R. No. 30 dated 15-1-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Got registered by Jameel-ur-Rehman against the petitioner in Police Station, New Town and copy of F.I.R. No. 397 dated 28-4-2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Got registered by Muhammad Ibrahim against the petitioner in Police Station, Sadiqabad Rawalpindi. It is concluded that the petitioner is a fraudulent person and a habitual cheater. His bail application be dismissed.
The petitioner has changed his stand before this Court regarding issuance of disputed cheque to the complainant. In his bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rawalpindi, his plea was that the disputed cheque was a guarantee cheque which was obtained by the complainant by confining him in a room by extending threats of dire consequences. This being so, signature of Aamir Hussain/petitioner upon the cheque and its dishonour by the bank is an admitted fact. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Aamir Hussain/petitioner issued A cheque by mentioning advance date as 11-9-2009. The petitioner in this case has defrauded the complainant of his huge amount of Rs.9,00,000 (Rupees nine lac) by issuing bogus cheque while there was insufficient amount in his account. It amounts to financial murder of the complainant by the petitioner. So, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Wrong mentioning of Rs.9,00,000 as Rs.90,000 in the recovery memo speaks of the callousness on the part of police while conducting investigation of the case. Any how, it does not cause any dent in the prosecution story as Rs.90,000 (Rupees nine lac) has been clearly written upon the cheque issued by the petitioner as well as on the dishonour slip issued by the bank. 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. Deeper appreciation is neither permissible nor warranted under law at bail stage.
Copies of different F.I.Rs. Registered against the petitioner as mentioned earlier by this Court go on to show that the petitioner is a cheat. He in the habit of issuing bogus cheques to different persons.
There appears no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioner as accused in this case. Out of huge amount of Rs.9,00,000 (Rupees nine lac), the petitioner has not so far returned even a single penny to the complainant. I, therefore, find that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. His bail application, therefore, stands dismissed.
["Muhammad Akram v. The State" 2008 M LD 303 [Lahore], "Shameel Ahmad v. The State" 2009 SCM R 174, "Muhammad Afzal Javed v. Muhammad Akram and another" 2010 P.Cr.R 622 [Lahore], "Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others" 2002 SCM R 442 and "Muhammad Naeem v.
The State" 2010 PCr.LJ 504 [Lahore] relied upon]