' MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Riaz Jafar Natiq, petitioner, moved the present petition under section 497 of Cr.P.C. For grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,895 of 2010, dated 27-8-2010, registered under section 489-F of P.P.C. With Police Station, Islampura, Lahore.
' As per allegation levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner handed over the disputed cheque for an amount of Rs,2,00,00,000 to the complainant, which was dishonoured on presentation, hence, the above-mentioned F.I.R.
' It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was roped in this case in the name of investment and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat by his own sons; that the sons of the petitioner convinced him to issue the cheque, whereas, the same shall not be presented for encashment.; that the petitioner had not taken any loan from the complainant so there was no question of any repayment of loan; that the petitioner issued four different cheques out of which two have already been dishonoured; that the petitioner has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 8-6-2011, passed in Criminal Petition No,347-L of 2011 in another F.I.R. No,1107, dated 23-8-2010, offence under section, 489-F of P.P.C., Police Station, Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. And that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, for the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is habitual offender; that the petitioner is in a habit of repeating the same offence; that the petitioner has admittedly issued four cheques and two separate F.ERs, have already been registered against the petitioner in respect of above mentioned cheques; that the petitioner remained absconder in this case; that no one can claim bail as a matter of right, if offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role. He issued the disputed cheque of an amount of Rs,2,00,00,000 to the complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation by the concerned Bank, therefore, sufficient material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. In the grounds of bail petition, the petitioner has admitted the issuance of disputed cheque, though he has made an excuse that he was made a scapegoat by his own sons.
It is also mentioned in para No,5 of his bail petition that the petitioner has already issued four cheques and out of these four cheques, two have already been dishonoured on presentation by the concerned Banks. Two separate F.I.Rs, at two different Police Stations, have already been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of order dated 8-6- 2011, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the present petitioner was granted bail in another case- F.I.R. No,1107 of 2010, dated 23-8-2010, offence under section, 489-F of P.P.C., Police Station, Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore. The above mentioned fact shows that the petitioner is in a habit of repeating the same offence. It is admitted by the petitioner that he has already issued four different cheques of huge amounts, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail after arrest as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCM R 174).
7. It is evident from perusal of police file that the petitioner remained fugitive from law. The investigation of police dated 8-9-2010, 21-9-2010 and 7-10-2010, transpires that the police was making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and warrants of arrest of the petitioner were also obtained in this regard, but all that proved to be in vain. Finally, on 8-10-2010, the petitioner was arrested in another case F.I.R. No,1107 of 2010. In the judgment reported as Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 402), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down that a fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural as also substantive law. The relevant para is very important and the same is reproduced as under:-- "It is now well established law that a fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural as also substantive law. It is also a well-established proposition that unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case".
8. There is no cavil with this proposition that grant of bail in offences, which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C, is a rule and refusal is an exception, but keeping in view the above mentioned facts of the present case, the case of the petitioner fall under the exception to the above mentioned general rule. As discussed earlier, the petitioner has issued different cheques and prima-facie it appears that he is in a habit of repeating the same offence and as the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a considerable period of time, without any plausible explanation, therefore, the above mentioned general rule is not applicable in the instant case. Although the offence under section 489-F of P.P.C. Does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C, but an accused of such offence cannot claim bail as a matter of right as held in the judgment reported as Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442).
9. In the light of above discussion, this petition is without any force and the same is hereby DISMISSED.
10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of decision of other issues involved in the above mentioned case/F.I.R. Or at, the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial court.