Through this petition Farooq Alam petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R, No, 1305/11, dated 12.12.2011, registered at Police Station Shah Bagh, Lahore in respect of an offence under Section 489- F, PPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case; that there is an inordinate delay of more than two months in lodging of the F.I.R. without any explanation; that in fact the disputed cheque mentioned in the F.I.R. was issued without date as a guarantee to the complainant in the backdrop of a business transaction and on the basis of the alleged cheque, complainant got lodged the instant F.I.R; that there is no. documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the matter between the parties is purely of rendition of accounts but the complainant with the connivance of the police, converted the same into a criminal case; that prior to lodging of the instant F.I.R. civil suit between the parties regarding the disputed cheque is also pending before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction; that the offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr. P.C.; that in the circumstances case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt and that petitioner is behind the bars since 17.05.2012 without any progress in his trial.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner has deprived the innocent complainant from a huge amount of Rs,6,00,000/- that nothing is on the record that cheque was issued to the complainant as a guarantee in a business transaction; that in fact the petitioner took a loan from the complainant as he is his paternal uncle and has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in, this case; that issuance of the disputed cheque by the petitioner is admitted and dishonouring of the same is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 489-F, PPC; that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has properly been explained in the F.I.R.; that petitioner is a habitual offender and three other cases i,e, F.I.R. Nos, 1094/11, 1304/11 and 36/12, under the similar offence, have also been registered against him; that petitioner remained fugitive from law for a considerable period of about four months; that contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need deeper appreciation of the evidence of the case and that is not permissible at bail stage and that mere non-falling of an offence within prohibitory clause does not entitle any accused to be released on bail as a matter of right. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on case law 2011 M LD 299, 2010 YLR 3034, 2010 M LD 760, 2009 SCM R 174, 2009 YLR 1786, 2009 YLR 904, 2008 M LD 303, 2008 M LD 255, PLD 1984 SC 157 and PLD 2009 Cr. C (Lahore) 1004.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Be that as it may, F.I.R. does not speak about the nature and details of the transaction between the parties, even there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the transaction mentioned in the F.I.R. The alleged dishonest intention of the petitioner can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence and case against the petitioner, prima facie, falls within subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
Petitioner is behind the bars since 17.05.2012 whereas the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is imprisonment for three years and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that in two cases i,e, F.I.R. Nos, 1304/11 and 36/12, petitioner has already been allowed bail. Further states that petitioner is previously non- convict.
As far as abscondance of the petitioner is concerned, it has by now well settled that if an accused is found entitled for bail on merits and his case is otherwise one of further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P. Code, he cannot be refused bail merely on the ground of his abscondance. Reference in this context is placed on the case law Mitho Pitafi versus The State (2009 SCM R 299). Case law referred above by the learned counsel for the complainant is quite distinguishable than the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of all above, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Area Magistrate.
7. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.