' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. Applicant Amin Iqbal son of Shaikh Iqbal Hussain, earlier has been granted concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail by this court vide order dated 13-6-2012; hence it ripe up for confirmation or otherwise. Applicant is being booked in Crime No,228 of 2010, falling under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Risala, Karachi.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as is envisaged in the F.I.R. Is as follows:-- "Complainant Mst. Nasreen alias Kooki Rawat daughter of Manzoor Rawat resident of C-64, Darkhshan Villa's, Phase-VI, DHA Karachi; recorded her complaint at Police Station Risala, Karachi stating therein that complainant resides on the above-mentioned address; due to business relations; complainant gave amount to Amin Iqbal and Amin Iqbal promised for return of amount within six months; after expiry of six months period, accused asked her that he is very disturbed and slowly he would pay the amount and after that on 20-5-2010 Amin Iqbal came at the office/in her Chamber which opposed City Court and issued six Cheques of Rupees six Lac twenty five thousand of different dates and three Cheques (1) 3765870 dated 25-5-2010 of Rs,100,000, (2)
3765872 dated 10-6-2010 worth Rs,100,000 and (3) 376587 dated 25-8-2010 Rs,100,000 which complainant drawn in account in Metropolitan Bank, Tahir Saifuddin Road, Branch, which was dishonoured and other three cheques of rupees three Lac twenty five thousand of Bolan Bank limited, Karachi which will' still complainant did not draw her account. Shaikh Amin Iqbal told her but when she cashed. After she draws the cheques, complainant draws other three cheques in Muslim Commercial Bank which also remain dishonoured, complainant claim against Sheikh Amin Iqbal son of Shaikh Iqbal Hussain for issuance of bogus cheques, legal action may be taken"
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.-G. For the State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant/accused lodged F.I.R. Against brother of the complainant and so also files suit for cancellation of cheques; applicant/accused never issued any cheque to the complainant but some business relation having with brother of the complainant; due to some dispute over business transactions an F.I.R. Was registered; Mehmood Rawat purchased vehicle on instalment; the instalments were also paid by the present applicant/accused; applicant/accused kept four kilogram gold with Mehmood Rawat which is admitted; on demand of four kilogram gold from brother of complainant, complainant registered false case against the applicant/accused; the present case is kind of blackmailing; the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; lastly learned counsel for the applicant/accused prayed for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has relied upon 2007 YLR 1495 Karachi, 2009 YLR 2178 Karachi, 2005 PCr.LJ 11173(sic) Lahore and 2009 SCMR 1488.
5(sic). Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that there was any business transaction between applicant/ accused and brother of complainant; complainant has nothing to do; and suit for cancellation of cheques filed by the applicant/accused is following already registered F.I.R. And there was no any status quo order operating in the earlier suit by the learned trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2013 SCMR 51, 2009 SCMR 174, 2008 YLR 947, 2011 MLD 621, 2008 SCMR 966, 2010 SCMR 806, 2009 SCMR 725.
7. Learned A.P.-G. Stress arguments that applicant had obtained a friendly loan from the complainant and there is/was no business transaction between rivals; learned A.P.-G. Strongly oppose the confirmation of ad interim bail earlier granted to the applicant/accUsed.
8. Having gathered respective arguments advanced and have perused entire material available on the file. It is transparent from perusal of police papers, three cheques of different dates were issued by the applicant/accused in favour of the complainant; same were dishonoured on its presentation, by the Banker of applicant/ accused; and there is no such denial in respect of the issuance of bogus cheques. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the complainant produced photo stat copy F.I.R. Bearing Crime No,1324 of 2009 lodged by one Anees Atiq against the present applicant/accused and such case has been challaned before the court of Law. It seems that, applicant/accused is in the habit of issuing bogus cheques and same on its presentation remain dishonoured; and there is no mala fide on the part of complainant. Apart from above, applicant/ accused has failed to establish on record, the mala fide on the part of prosecution. Since, there is sufficient material available on the record to connect applicant/accused with the alleged offence. The case-law cited supra by the learned counsel representing applicant/accused would not helpful to the applicant/accused for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail because; the facts and circumstances of the captioned matter are distinguishable from the facts pilgrim in the cited case-law by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused.
' In the case of Sohail Ahmed Babar v. The State, reported in 2008 SCMR page 966 in which it has been held as follows:-- "---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--- Recalling of bail granting order---Petitioner was aggrieved by order passed by High Court whereby order granting bail to petitioner was recalled---Charge had been framed against petitioner and case had been set down for recording of evidence, which was likely to be commenced soon--- Impugned order not suffering from any illegality or arbitrariness, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
' In the case of Riaz Ahmad v. The state reported in 2009 SCMR 725,-it has been held as under:-- "---S.498---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Accused was specifically named in the F.I.R, with serious allegations--- Extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail could not be granted to suchlike offenders---F.I.R. Against the accused was not shown to have been lodged due to the mala fides of the police or the complainant which was the precondition for grant of pre-arrest bail---High Court on the said cogent and strong reasons had disallowed pre- arrest bail to accused, which called for no interference by Supreme Court in the discretionary powers exercised by the High Court---Prearrest bail was declined to accused accordingly."
9. At the juncture, the applicant/ accused did not deserve for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him; the order passed earlier granting ad interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused is hereby recalled; and the captioned bail application stands dismissed.
' The criminal bail application is dismissed.