' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.---The complainant in attendance does not want to engage services of counsel.
2. Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,99 of 2011, registered under section 489-F of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station, Kharian Cantt., District Gujrat.
3. Allegation in brief, contained in the F.I.R., recorded on the strength of written complaint of Muhammad Akram son of Sardar Khan, is that present petitioner gave him a cheque for a sum of Rs,2,65,000 drawn on Soneri Bank Limited, G.T. Road Branch, Kharian, District Gujrat, which on presentation on 15-4-2011 was bounced due to insufficient funds.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Referring to the date of alleged dishonouring of cheque and registration of F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that inordinate delay of 42 days is sufficient to demonstrate malice-in-fact of accusation contained in the F.I.R. Referring to the contents of F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no offence under section 489-F, of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 has been made out as contents of F.I.R. Are totally silent for which purpose the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant. Further maintained that offence under which case has been registered does not fall within prohibitory clause and as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Help was sought from the dictum laid down in `RIAZ JAFAR NATIQ v. MUHAMMAD NADEEM DAR and others' (2011 SCM R 1708).
' Repelling arguments, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General maintained that case was not registered by the local police prompting the complainant to make an application under section 22-A of the. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before the learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace on 12-5- 2011 and after issuance of appropriate direction, case was registered. Further maintained that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs,2,65,000 who, in order to liquidate his liability, issued cheque, which due to insufficient funds, was bounced. Contended that sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner in the offence under which case has been registered.
Making reference to the order dated 21-9-2011 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General maintained that direction has been issued to the trial Court for conclusion of trial within a period of two months and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Without adverting to the merits of the case, suffice it to say that offence under which case has been registered against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is little cavil with the well expounded proposition of law that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause as held in "TARIQ BASHIR and 5 others v. THE STATE"
(PLD 1995 SC 34). Rule of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner "RIAZ JAFAR NATIQ v. MUHAMMAD NADEEM DAR and others (2011 SCM R 1708) is also fully attracted to the facts of present case. It has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, the concession for grant of bail must be favourably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases. Admittedly, there are no exceptional circumstances prompting this Court to withhold the concession of bail. Argument canvassed by the learned D.P.G. That direction has been issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for expeditious disposal of the case by itself is not sufficient to decline application for post-arrest bail when petitioner otherwise is entitled to have the premium of post-arrest bail. The petitioner got no previous record. He is in the judicial lock up since 17-7-2011. Further detention of the petitioner in Jail will not serve any useful purpose.
6. Pursuant to above discussion, application for post-arrest bail is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.