' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.---Petitioner Sardar Bahadar Mughal has moved this petition for grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 30 of 2012 dated 11-1-2012 registered under section 489-F P.P.C. At Police Station Defence-A, Lahore for the alleged issuance of three cheques valuing Rs.23,50,000, which when presented were dishonoured.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that there is a delay of almost 4 months in lodging the F.I.R., which is unexplained; that no time and date of alleged payment to the petitioner by the complainant is shown; that complainant's version that petitioner contacted her through a relative but detail of that person or name has not been given; that petitioner is detained in the lock-up since 30-1-2012 that actually investigation has been completed, he is no more required by the police for further investigation purposes; that trial so far has not been concluded; that earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8-11-2012 but that was not decided on merits, hence, this petition is moved. While relying on "Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others" (2011 SCM R 1708) and "Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others" (2009 SCM R 1488) prayed that this petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender as he is previously involved in so many cases of same like nature and for instance he referred F.I.R. No.136 of 2012 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Model Town District Lahore, F.I.R., No. 1136 of 2012 registered at Police Station Ghalib Market under the same offence and F.I.R. No.98 of 2012 dated 31-1-20.12 under section 489-F, P.P.C.
At Police Station Defence-A, Lahore. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted Photostat copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court showing that examination-in-chief of P.W.1 although has been recorded but counsel for the petitioner in spite of specific repeated directions by the learned trial Court is not appearing to cross-examine, hence, trying to delay and seeking bail on that ground. Prayed that this bail petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, offence under section 489-F, P. P. C . Is maximum punishable up to 3 years R.I and ordinarily in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The legislature had intentionally kept this offence as non-bailable and it has consistently been held by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that in non-bailable offences grant of bail is not the right of an accused and it is a concession. In the judgment cited by learned counsel for the complainant "Shanzeel Ahmed v. The State" (2009 SCM R 174) their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan have categorically held:- Bail in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. --- Principles----Grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to S. 497, Cr.P..C. Is not a rule of universal application----. Each case has to be seen through its own facts and circumstances---Grant of bail, no doubt, is a discretion granted to a Court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse."
' In view of the above circumstances when the petitioner is a repeater of offence involved in three cases of similar nature and is also trying to delay the conclusion of the trial in order to create a ground for grant of bail and his earlier bail application recently has been dismissed by this Court and no fresh ground at this stage is made out, therefore, while relying on the judgment (supra) cited by learned counsel for the complainant, petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
Resultantly, finding no merit in this petition, same is hereby dismissed.