' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mst. Rubina Qureshi (petitioner) seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R.
No,588 of 2012 dated 25-9-2012 registered for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Berooni, Rawalpindi.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she issued a cheque of Rs,10,50,000 to the complainant Fazal Akbar, in the backdrop of an agreement to sell, which was presented for encashment by the latter but it was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to malice and ulterior motive of the complainant; the petitioner was made to issue the cheque in question as a guarantee instrument which fact is admitted by the complainant in agreement to sell, executed on 15-11-2010 as well as in another agreement of the same nature, dated 7-3-2011; lastly submits that petitioner has not committed any offence and she may be saved from the undue harassm ent likely to be caused to her under the garb of a false case got lodged by the complainant against her.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the contention that issuance of the cheque and her signature thereon is admitted by the petitioner; the cheque in, question was never intended to be issued as a guarantee instrument by the petitioner and she issued it for the sole purpose of repaying the amount received by her from the complainant in relation to an agreement to sell, whereby, she struck a deal with the complainant for sale of landed property measuring 4 kanals; the petitioner on one hand, has received an amount of Rs,4.2 million from the complainant for attestation of the requisite sale deed and on the other hand dishonestly issued a bogus cheque .So as to usurp the said amount in violation to the terms agreed upon; lastly submits that petitioner has committed a non-bailable offence, hence, she may not be granted the extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that two agreements to sell were executed between the parties on 13-7-2010. In one of the agreement deeds, Mst. Rubina Qureshi (petitioner) is the vendor of land measuring 4 kanal, khasra No,344 situated in village Kalyas, district Rawalpindi, the complainant being the vendee and in the other agreement deed, the latter, despite not being the proprietor of the said land poses himself as such and shows to have sold it to her (petitioner) for an enhanced amount of Rs,56,00,000. There is yet another agreement between the parties which was executed on 15-11-2010 wherein it has been mentioned that Mst. Rubina Qureshi (petitioner) issued the cheque in question as a guarantee instrument to the complainant, who is the second party of the said agreement. The fact that the cheque in question is a guarantee instrument has been impliedly admitted by the complainant in yet another agreement-deed executed between the parties on 7-3-2011. Before the-complainant could report it to the police, the petitioner had already filed four independent civil suits qua the matter-in-issue against the complainant and others before the Senior Civil Judge at Rawalpindi, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are still pending adjudication. A simple and 'plain transaction regarding sale of the said property has been rendered complicated not only by the complainant but by both the parties. It is incomprehendible that the complainant was merely an intending vendee on 13-7-2010 qua the said land and without attaining the title thereof he appeared to have sold it, back to back, to the petitioner for an enhanced amount, as regards the consideration amount of Rs,4.2 million, as mentioned in the first agreement to sell. The controversy between the parties, which is of civil nature, can only be resolved by a competent civil court where the above noted suits are still pending. Whether or not the cheque in question is a guarantee instrument or what repercussions would it have on the merits of the trial of the accused/petitioner, is a significant factor which can only be gone into by the learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The complicity .Of the prosecution version renders it a case, fit enough for grant of bail before arrest to the petitioner, who being a lady has the coverage of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. To her credit. Her involvement in this case due to some calculated or ulterior motive of the complainant cannot be ruled out.
6. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 23-10-2012 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court..