Through instant petition, petitioner-Raees Ghulam Mujtaba seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 638/2010 dated 14.10.2010 registered under Section 489-F, PPC with Police Station City A-Division Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that he dishonestly issued a Cheque No 3037673 amounting Rs, 11,00,00* of his Account No, 0126200048 at Allied Bank of Rahim Yar Khan Branch in favour of the complainant, who presented the same to the said bank but it was dishonoured.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it transpires that the FIR has, been lodged with an unexplained delay of about nine months which shows that the same was registered after due deliberations and consultations. The FIR further goes to reveals that the petitioner is property dealer and the complainant purchased a plot measuring 6 marla through the petitioner for consideration of Rs, 11,00,000/- The plot was also alienated in the name of the complainant vide registered sale-deed No, 5838 dated 30.06.2008. Learned counsel for the complainant during course of arguments alleged that though the registered sale-deed and mutation of plot has been got sanctioned in favour of the complainant but no possession thereof has been delivered to the complainant Conversely learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner issued the cheque as guarantee and he further offered that if the complainant transfer back the disputed plot to the petitioner, he is ready to pay the whole amount as alleged by the. complainant. But the complainant refused to accept the offer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the copy of Iqrar Nama, which shows that the petitioner issued the impugned cheque as guarantee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the photo copy of Punchait Nama as well as copy of order dated 21.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Rahim Yar Khan Whereby suit filed by the complainant for partition of Khatta has been dismissed in default. Prima-facie, these facts show that parties are involved in civil litigation. There was a business transaction between the parties and the cheque was issued as guarantee but the complainant with mala fide and ulterior motive instead of implicating the original vendee, has falsely involved the petitioner in the instant case, as he intends to take the fruit from civil as well as criminal sides. It also appears that he wants to usurp the plot and also want to recover the amount, as he did not accept offer made by petitioner's side for return of plot and receipt of his disputed amount. Even other-wise the offence under Section 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. As the ASI present in the Court states that petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him, therefore, handing over the custody of the petitioner to the police would not any useful purpose to the prosecution.
5. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is accepted and ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioner vide order 'dated 14.05.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Re. 100,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Before parting with this order it is made clear that the above observations are purely tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party.