' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Having failed to secure bail from the Courts below, the accused/petitioner Ghulam Jillani has filed the instant petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.544 dated 12-9- 2013 registered under section 489-F P.P.C. At Police Station City, D.I.Khan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was argued that the cheque was issued on 10-4-2012 whereas the arbitration between the parties took place on 14-7-2013 and it is pertinent, to mention that the arbitration does not contain the factum of issuance of cheque on 10-4-2012 which means that the cheque was not issued as being not disclosed in the arbitration. It was contended that there is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. He also referred to daily diary dated 29-12-2011, wherein it was alleged by the petitioner that he lost small bag which contained cheque books pertaining two banks duly signed and other articles. He contended that decision of, arbitrators has been challenged by the petitioner before the civil Court and on the other hand, the respondent/complainant has applied for making arbitration as rule of the Court and as such the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry and he is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. As against that, the learned A.A.G assisted by learned counsel for the comp6inant contended that petitioner is resident of Dhakki, Tehsil Paharpur situated at a distance of 60/70 kilometers from D.I.Khan and he has moved the application before the local police of Police Station City, D.I.Khan which shows that it was manipulated. It was contended that the petitioner is involved in other case where he had issued cheques to other person against which suit was filed in the year 2010 and later on it was decided on the basis of compromise. It was contended that after the issuance of this cheque, another cheque was issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.45,00,000 in favour of the respondent/complainant which has also been dishonoured by the bank and an F.I.R. To this effect has also been registered against the petitioner and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The perusal of record reveals that the Cheque in question bearing No.2582902 issued on 10-4- 2012 for Rs.10,00,000 drawn on Allied Bank Limited, Circular Road, D.I. Khan was allegedly issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent which was dishonoured on the ground of stop payment by the bank. It was averred in the F.I.R. That delay was caused due to the reason that the parties was in an arbitration to resolve the issue. The arbitrators decided in favour of respondent on 14-7- 2013 and thereafter the F.I.R. Has been lodged. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the arbitration proceedings before the Court whereas the respondent has moved an application to make the arbitration as rule of the Court. The plea of the petitioner, that he lost his bag containing different articles including cheque books duly signed and regarding that he had already informed the bank for stop payment, does not stand to reason that the entire cheque book was duly signed which was stolen or lost. No doubt the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr P.C. But it is not a rule of universal application, as each case has to be decided on its own merits. The subsequent issuance of cheque by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.45,00,000 against which an F.I.R. Was also registered against the petitioner, negates his version that the cheque book duly signed by him was lost, because the subsequent cheque was issued after the arbitration recorded against him by the arbitrators and has been challenged by him in the Court of law, which shows that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature by issuing cheques and defaulting payments and appears to be habitual for issuance of cheques. The daily diary referred above seems to be an afterthought relating to the previous transactions of the petitioner and is now taking benefit of it for the subsequent transactions including the instant one. The issuance of cheques with dishonest intention would not entitle the petitioner for bail on the ground that there are monetary disputes between the parties, as the possibility of issuance of cheques dishonestly by the petitioner could not be ruled out at this stage. The other case referred by learned counsel for the respondent titled Muhammad Iqbal v. Ghulam Jillani, wherein cheque was issued on 29-5-2010 by the petitioner for amount of Rs.30,00,000 which was later on decided on the basis of compromise. All these in juxtaposition suggest that the petitioner is connected with the commission of offence and is not entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim v.The State and another 2012 PCr.LJ 1956 wherein it was held that:- "The record further shows that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender having issued like manner cheques to other people as well and in this respect he is facing prosecution in seven cases registered through different F.I. Rs. Such conduct of an accused has been abhorred by the superior Courts, specially when a person is involved in a series of cases relating to offences badly affecting the society at large. Even otherwise, the issuance of cheques which are in turn dishonoured for want of insufficient balance, or on account of closure of the account result in the erosion of inter se trust amongst the people of different strata of society."
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.