1. ' SYED HASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---By this application, under section 497, Cr.P.C., applicant Farhaj Ahmed has approached this Court for grant of bail in Crime No,161 of 2013 of Police Station Gulshan-eIqbal, Karachi, wherein he has been charged with the commission of offence punishable under sections 489-F/406/420, P.P.C.
2. ' The bail plea of the applicant was rejected by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) in B.A. No,956 of 2013 vide order dated 24-5-2013, hence this application.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Aamir Jamil, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.B. Khatian, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned A.P.-G.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is long delay in lodging the F.I.R. He contended that the allegation levelled by the complaint in the alleged F.I.R. Is nothing but a bundle of false statement as the complainant has received the said amount from the applicant but with mala fide intention lodged false F.I.R. Against the applicant. He also contended that all the above cheques were given prior to the whole payment only for satisfaction of the complainant as applicant has given the same as a surety but the complainant failed to return the same after completion of the whole amount and misused the said cheques only to blackmail the applicant. He further contended that the dispute if any is purely civil nature but the complainant malafidely implicated the present applicant in this case. He submitted that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore the applicant is entitled to be admitted on bail. He, lastly argued that applicant is ready to furnish security equivalent to the amount of dishonoured cheques. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Muhammad Zulfiqar v. The State (2005 M LD 1063), Safdar Hussain v. The State (2005 YLR 1607), and Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCM R 51).
5. ' On the other hand, Mr. M. B. Khatian, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant and have argued that applicant committed fraud with the widow by usurping huge amount in the sum of Rs,95,00,000. He submitted that if the applicant granted bail, there is every likelihood that applicant will jump the bail as he has already closed his business. He submitted that complainant has serious doubt on the nationality of the applicant for the simple reason that earlier he was doing business in the name of Dacca Sweet and now he alleged that he will start business in the name of Bangal Sweet. He, lastly submitted that applicant/accused has not only cheated the complainant but some other persons have also cheated by him, which can be seen from F.I.R. No,43 of 2012 of the same police station of the same crime wherein the applicant after grant of bail not appeared before the Court and proceedings under sections 87/88 were carried out against him and he was declared'as proclaimed offender.
6. He submitted that the applicant has not approached to this Court with clean hands, therefore, not entitle for grant of bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:-
(1) 2001 SCMR 806, (2) 2010 PCr.LJ 1099, (3) 2011 PCr.LJ 747, (4) 2009 PCr.LJ 805, (5) 2009 PCr.LJ 1140,
(6) 2011 PCr.LJ 774, (7) 2011 PCr.LJ 268, (8) 2007 YLR 1542, (9) 2007 YLR 1796 and (10)2008 YLR 1686 ' Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. He opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant. He urged that charge has already been framed in the case on 11-4-2013, wherein only 8/9 witnesses have been cited. He undertakes that prosecution will examine the all witnesses within two months subject to cooperation of applicant's side. He, therefore, requests that trial Court may be directed to conclude the trial at the earliest possible time.
7. ' I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that there is no denial of execution of agreement between the applicant and complainant so also issuance of dishonoured cheques.
8. Perusal of section 489-F P.P.C. Reveals that the provision will be attracted if the following conditions are fulfilled and proved by the prosecution:--- "(i) issuance of cheque;
(ii) such issuance was with dishonest intention;
(iii) the purpose of issuance of cheques should be:-
(a) To repay a loan; or
(b) To fulfill an obligation (which in wide term inter alia applicable to lawful agreements, contracts, services, promises by which one is bound or an act which binds person to some performance).
(iv) on presentation, the cheques is dishonoured."
9. In the case in hand, the applicant in this case had defrauded the complainant of her huge amount by issuing bogus cheques, which amount to financial murder of the complainant by the applicant.
10. The applicant only offered for furnishing security equivalent to the dishonoured cheques and not the full amount. No doubt, the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, grant of bail in such like cases is not a rule of universal application. Each case has to be seen on its own facts A and circumstances. Deeper appreciation is neither permissible nor warranted under law at bail stage. Copy of F.I.R. No,43 of 2012 of the same Police Station registered against the applicant shows that he is habit of issuing bogus cheques to different persons. There appears no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely involve the applicant as accused in this case. The applicant accused has closed his business and if the applicant is admitted to bail there is every likelihood that he will jump the bail. Therefore: in my humble view applicant does not deserve any leniency.
11. ' Foregoing are the reasons for short order dated 12-7-2013 whereby bail was declined to the applicant/accused and directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within two months and submit fortnight progress report to this Court through MIT.
12. ' The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court need not to be influenced from the same.