' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Petitioner Sajjad Ahmed son of Ch. Khuda Dad, seeks bail after arrest in case registered vide F.I.R. No.152, dated 8-4-2011, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as gleans out from the F.I.R. Is that complainant of the case namely, Ajaib Khan moved an application to the SSP, Islamabad with the assertion that he entered into an agreement to sell dated 8-6-2010 with petitioner/accused Sajjad Ahmed, regarding property situated at Pind Parian, Tehsil and District, Islamabad and petitioner/accused issued a Cheque bearing No.0004850625, of Rs.60,00,000 (sixty lac) dated 5-7-2010 to be drawn at Faysal Bank Ltd.
Branch, I-10, Markaz, Islamabad as sale consideration of the said property but the same was dishonoured on its presentation on 18-8-2010. Moreover, the property in question has further been transferred to someone else and the petitioner/accused is neither paying the amount nor transferring the property to the complainant. Thus he has committed an offence under sections 489-F and 420, P.P.C.
3. The petitioner approached the "Allaqa Judicial Magistrate" for grant of bail after arrest but his request was declined vide order dated 20-6-2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad who entrusted the bail petition to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad but his petition met the same fate. Resultantly, petitioner approached this court for grant of bail after arrest.
4. The learned counsel for the' petitioner submits that dishonour of cheque does not give rise to initiation of criminal proceedings under section 489-F, P.P.C. Unless and until complainant does not prove fulfilment of his corresponding liability. The learned counsel contended that in fact no land was transferred in favour of petitioner; that the petitioner has been declared innocent in the investigation conducted by SP Investigation, Islamabad and he is no more required for investigation He further argued that offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioner is untitled to the concession of bail.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned standing counsel opposed the bail petition, mainly on the ground that number of other cases are also registered against the petitioner. He further submits that, issuance of cheque of a huge amount is admitted, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The plain reading of section 489-F, P.P.C. Which is being reproduced hereinbelow, makes it abundantly clear that three different punishments are provided which obviously in the facts and circumstances of the case can be inflicted as punishment upon any accused obviously on the strength of evidence and data available on the record.
"Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him' , that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque".
7. As is evident from above:--
(i) Imprisonment which may extend to 03 years. OR
(ii) with fine OR
(iii) with both.
' The provision itself provides a right to an accused to get himself absolved from the charge by adducing evidence that he made arrangements with his bank to ensure that. The cheque was to be honoured and it was, the fault of the bank not honouring the cheque. In my estimation, on the conclusion of trial despite finding any accused guilty of the offence, there is every likelihood/ probability/possibility that trial court may impose fine of a meagre amount of Rs.50 only as punishment. In such an eventuality, to deprive any person from the concession of bail is simply harsh and unjust.
8. It is well-settled law with the mandate of the dictums of the superior Courts of the country that law has to be stretched in favour of accused and beneficial interpretation has to be made in his favour. When there is just a remote possibility that an accused may not be awarded imprisonment of even one month then propriety demands that discretion has to be exercised in favour of the accused. Now, coming to the other extreme, that maximum punishment provided is up to 3 years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through different authoritative pronouncements, time and again held that when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, bail is a rule and refusal an exception. In this regard, I seek guidance from 2009 SCMR page 1488, Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others 2009 SCMR Page 174, Shameel v. The State and others 2011 SCMR Page 1708, Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others and 2011 SCMR page 870, Sikandar Zaman v.
The State and others Offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable.
' In view of above, there is no exceptional circumstance on the basis of which petitioner's request of bail may be declined. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail subject to' furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,00,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.