Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Muhammad Ameen, seeks pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 159, dated 17.03.2011, registered with Police Station Fareed Town, District Sahiwal, under Section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR, is that he issued two cheques amounting to Rs, 2,50,000/- each, to the complainant, which on presentation were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in the instant case due to mala fide and ulterior motives; that the cheques, for the first-time, were produced before the Bank on 08.02.2007 but the FIR was lodged on 17.03.2011 i,e, after the period of four years; that the said cheques were executed as a guarantee in the business transaction but on account of differences being arisen between the parties, the same were used against the petitioner; that a civil suit for rendition of account is also pending between the parties; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the ground that the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, which shows that the petitioner has dishonestly issued the cheques; that a huge amount of Rs, 5,00,000/- is involved, hence, he is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. On a Court question, the police official, present in Court, states that the petitioner is not required by the police for the purpose of investigation, as the same is complete. The petitioner has also instituted a suit for rendition of accounts, which is sub-judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction therefore, the element of mala fide to falsely A involve the present petitioner, cannot be ruled-out. Maximum punishment in the offence is three years, which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. In such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. No useful purpose would be served by handing over the custody of the petitioner to police.
6. In view of the above narrated reasons, instant petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.06.2011 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.