' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Babar Hussain seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No, 1205/2011 dated 30-11-2011, under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Model Town District Gujranwala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R itself reflects that the cheque in question was given to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal between the parties; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that petitioner has no previous criminal record and is behind the bars since 10-2-2013 without any substantive progress in his trial; that case against the petitioner in the circumstances is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing this petition contends that petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount of Rs,15,00,000; that mere non-falling of the offence within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Does not entitle the petitioner to bail; that there is sufficient evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime as issuance of cheque and dishonouring thereof are enough to constitute the offence under section 489-F P.P.C.; that petitioner remained absconder for about 1-1/2 year, therefore, he is not entitled for the bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Be that as it may, according to the contents of the F.I.R. The disputed cheque was given in the backdrop of a business deal between the parties. Whether the disputed cheque was issued dishonestly, is a matter to be determined by .The learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. Petitioner is behind the bars since 10-2-2013 without any substantive progress in his trial.
Maximum punishment provided for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is imprisonment for three years. Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. Investigating Officer, present before the Court, confirms that the petitioner has no previous cr-iminal record. As far as abscondence of the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that it is well-settled by now that if case of an accused falls within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Then he shall be entitled for bail and mere abscondence would not be an impediment for the grant of bail to the accused. In his context, I respectfully refer the cases of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCM R 299), Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others (PLD 2012 SC 222) and of Ikram-ul-Haq v.
Raja Naveed Sabir and others (2012 SCM R 1273). Therefore, without going into further details of the controversy between the parties, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/ (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.