ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 254, dated 30.04.2011 under Section 489- F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Cantt., Multan.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R, are that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 13,00,000/- from the complainant against which he issued three cheques bearing cheque No. 1062726, dated 15.06.2010 worth Rs. .5,00,000/- (2) cheque No. 1062727, dated 22.06.2010 worth Rs. 4,00,000/- and (3) cheque No. 1062728, dated 09.07.2010 worth Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on U.B.L. Nishtar Chowk Branch, which when presented, were dishonoured.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of 10 months in lodging the F.I.R.; that challan has already been submitted in the Trial Court and charge has been framed on 23.04.2011 and uptill now no witness is recorded; that civil suit is pending between the parties; that the petitioner is Government Employee. The learned counsel relies on Rehmatullah v. The State and another (2011 SCM R 1332) and prays for grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail conditionally and on failure of the petitioner in fulfilling the terms and conditions of Mark-A the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was not confirmed; issuance of cheques is admitted and placing reliance on 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 196 prays for dismissal of the petition. The learned D.P.G, while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Prima facie execution of cheque is admitted. Although challan is submitted and charge is framed yet it appears that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to the grant of pre-arrest bail because commitment made by the petitioner was not honoured to fulfill his liability. At this stage, conduct of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail is relevant. The petitioner has failed to allege any mala fide against the complainant or the police to falsely involve him in this case. The complainant was apparently deprived of his valuable amount. In this view of the matter the petitioner has failed to make out a case for prearrest bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merits is dismissed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted vide order dated 11.06.2012 is hereby re-called.