' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail, allowed to Sh. Muhammad Ali (respondent No.2) vide order dated 24-5-2011 passed by this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5361-B of 2011, in case F.I.R. No.169, dated 21-3-2011, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Naseerabad, Lahore.
2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated by Shamshad Akhtar (complainant-petitioner) is that the respondent-accused handed down a cheque of Rs.1.2 million to the complainant which on presentation for encashment by her was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order had been obtained by respondent No.2 having suppressed the real facts of the case and misled the court to believe that he was on inimical terms with his maternal nephew Khalid Saeed; the first F.I.R. Bearing No.166 of 2011, dated 15-3-2011, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore was a conspiratorial instrument, devised by the respondent-accused to shun his liability towards the petitioner-complainant and create a false defence for his misdeed; the text of the F.I.R. No.166 of 2011 (supra) revealed that it was self-contradictory and it was created through an unholy liaison between the respondent-accused and his maternal nephew who was assisted by the former in getting him post-arrest bail in the said case from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore by compounding the offence with him; first F.I.R. No.166 of 2011 (supra) was not properly read and appreciated at the time of passing the impugned order; Khalid Saeed was an attorney of respondent No.2 and general power of attorney in his favour has not been rescinded by file respondent-accused as yet; lastly submits that the respondent-accused failed to satisfy the condition-precedent for grant of extraordinary relief of bail befdre arrest, hence, the impugned order may be re-called.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-accused submits that the order-in- question has been passed by this court while taking into consideration all the attending circumstances of the case and respondent No.2, at no stage, deceived or misled this court to procure the impugned order; the judicial opinion recorded by this court through the impugned order does not call for interference as condition-precedent for lodging such a request, akin to the case in hand, can only be entertained if the respondent-accused misused the concession of bail or suppressed or distorted the actual facts of the case; the contention of the petitioner as on today is not entertainable, hence the instant petition may be dismissed.
5. Learned DDPP submits that the police record still reveals that no evidence has been collected by the I.O., in terms of recording statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of any witness qua the alleged deal between the parties, hinting at purchase/sale of a house.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner counter argues with the submission that the statement of the Bank Manager and that of two independent witnesses regarding deliverance of cheque by respondent No.2 to the complainant-petitioner have been recorded.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the order-in-question was passed by this court after having considered all the facts of this case. It remains a fact that there exists no evidence on the record as to when, where and how the disputed cheque was handed down to the complainant-petitioner by the respondent-accused nor it can be found from the record as to who were the witnesses in whose presence the alleged transaction regarding sale/purchase of a house was carried out. Admittedly case-F.I.R. No.166 2011 (supra) was registered much earlier than case-F.I.R. No.169 2011 (supra), at the instance of Sh. Muhammad Ali (respondent No.2) wherein, the disputed cheque figures conspicuously, having been issued by the respondent-accused along with two other cheques, to his maternal nephew Khalid Saeed in the wake of sale of a house. This particular F.I.R. Deeply over-shadows the story of F.I.R. No.169 of 2011 ante.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has gone too deep into the facts of this case without realizing that it is a cancellation-petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Which has its own parameters and cannot be granted unless some serious legal infirmity or exceptional circumstance calling for interference, can be found from the bail-granting order. The rudiments of section 489-F, P.P.C.
Require that an offender would be liable for an action thereunder if he would dishonestly issue a cheque towards repayment of loan or discharge of a lawful obligation which on presentation be bounced by the bank for the reasons enumerated therein. It cannot be held even today that the above said basic ingredients stood satisfied. The story of F.I.R. No.169 of 2011 (supra) is as vague and perplexing as ever, for it, in absence of any corroboratory evidence, keeps its reader guessing as to the compulsive reason, leading to alleged deliverance of the disputed cheque by the respondent- accused to the petitioner. There is no allegation against the respondent-accused that he misused the concession of bail in any manner since his release from the prison. I do not find any flaw in the bail granting order which is hereby sustained. The instant petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.