' AALIA NEELUM, J. --- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 947/2012, dated 10.11.2012 under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner issued a cheque for the sum of Rs, 80,00,000/- in favour of the complainant but the same was dishonoured on its presentation in the Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been involved in the false case with mala fide intention; that there is inordinate delay of 01 month and 15 days in lodging the F.I.R., which is not plausibly explained; that the story narrated in the F.I.R. Is totally false, frivolous and concocted one; that actually the petitioner due to need of money, took loan a sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- and the same has been paid to the complainant in instalments and now nothing is outstanding against him; that neither the amount of Rs, 80,00,000/- is due against the petitioner nor the complainant is in position to give such huge amount as loan to the petitioner and that no documentary proof is available on the record, which shows that such huge amount has been paid to the petitioners that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five months and his person is no more required for further investigation and that the petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder so he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned DPG and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; that the cheque belongs to account of the petitioner and the same is duly signed by him; that the complainant is gold smith and he has sufficient source of income to give a sum of Rs, 80,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner; that the petitioner remained fugitive from law so he loses some of his normal right of concession of bail and sufficient incriminating material is available on the record to connect the petitioner with commission of the offence so he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. From the contents of the F.I.R., it reveals that the complainant did not mention the name of the persons in whose presence he lended a sum of Rs, 80,00,000/- to the petitioner and time, place & date are also not mentioned in this regard. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner admitted the issuance of cheque in question however, he stated that a sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- has been received from the complainant as loan and in this regard, the complainant received several signed blank cheques from the petitioner as security and on the demand of the complainant the entire amount of loan worth Rs, 3,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant through installments.
Whether the cheque was issued as guarantee or against payment of lended amount is to be seen by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties. The maximum punishment for commission of an offence punishable under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years and the same does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal thereof an exception. No exceptional ground is available to withhold the concession of bail. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his person is no more required for further investigation. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Bail after arrest granted.