' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Abdul Qayum, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.661 of 2011, dated 17-9-2011, offence under section 489-F, P. P. C . Registered at Police Station Cantt., Bahawalpur.
2. As per allegation against the petitioner as narrated in the instant F.I.R., petitioner had personal relations with the complainant, therefore, complainant handed over gold valuing Rs.68,80,000 as Trust (Amanat) to the petitioner but when complainant asked the petitioner to return his gold, he refused to return the same. Thereafter according to the settlement between the parties through the Panchaiat, petitioner issued 43 cheques, each amounting to Rs.1,60,000 equal to the amount of Gold valuing Rs,68,80,000. Out of which fifteen cheques were cashed but instant cheque amounting to Rs.1,60.000 was dishonoured on its presentation in the bank.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prosecution story that gold valuing Rs.68,80,000 was handed over to the petitioner as Trust (Amanat) is highly improbable; that there is no evidence available on the record that aforementioned gold was given to the petitioner as Trust (Amanat); that this false case has been registered against the petitioner by the complainant on the basis of malafides; that offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that prior to the instant case, complainant lodged cases against the petitioner bearing F.I.R. No.409 of 2010 and 65 of 2011, both under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Bahawalpur and F.I.R. No.283 of 2011 dated 15-7-2011 at Police Station Kotwali: Bahawalpur and in all aforementioned cases post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant Muhammad Khalid filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge pertaining to the cheques in question and in the said suit the complainant took a different stance that amount of Rs.68,80,000 was obtained by the petitioner from him as a loan. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on case-laws reported as 2009 SCM R 1488 (Zafar lqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others) and 2008 Cr.LJ 481 (Rana Maqsood Ahmad v. Rana Naveed Ahmad and others) submits that petitioner is entitled to be released on bail,
4. Learned D.P.G. And learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this petition on the grounds that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he issued series of cheques in favour t.Je complainant and when instant cheque amounting to Rs.1,60,000 was presented in the bank, the same was dishonoured; that although the offence does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But this is an exceptional case as petitioner issued so many cheques in favour of the complainant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care.
6. According to the version of the complainant as taken by him in the F.I.R., he handed over gold valuing Rs.68,80,000 to the petitioner as Trust (Amanat) but perusal of suit for permanent injunction filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge by the complainant against the petitioner titled "Haji Muhammad Khalid v. Abdul Qayum" reveals that complainant took a different stance that amount of Rs.68,80,000 was obtained by the petitioner from him as loan. No witness has been mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. In whose presence such huge quantity of Gold was handed over to the petitioner as Trust (Amanat). According to the complainant, petitioner issued 43 cheques each amounting to Rs.1,60,000. In this regard complainant lodged cases against the petitioner bearing F.I.R. No.409 of 2010 and 65 of 2011, both under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Bahawalpur and F.I.R. No.283 of 2011 dated 15-7-2011 at Police Station Kotwali, Bahawalpur. In all aforementioned cases registered against the petitioner, petitioner has been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court. Offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner has instituted a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge against the complainant and one Haji Shaukat Hussain, regarding the cheques in question, which is pending adjudication. The learned Civil Court after recording the evidence would come to the conclusion that whether the cheques were issued by the petitioner in order to make payment for the Gold as contended by the complainant or these cheques were without any consideration as asserted by the petitioner. No useful purpose would he served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
7. For what has been discussed above, petition in hand is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bands in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.