' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.---Petitioner Imtiaz Ali alias Bhola son of Sabir Hussain has moved this petition for grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 391 dated 4-7-2012 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Khayali, District Gujranwala for the alleged issuance of cheque worth Rs,50,00,000 in favour of complainant which, when presented in the bank, was dishonored.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that he had no business transaction with the complainant; that actually cheque was unsigned and was given to one Asif Paracha as guarantee because the petitioner has some business transaction with him for purchase of iron etc; that he also appointed said Asif Paracha as his attorney for selling out his property valuing Rs,20,000,000 who sold out the same in a meagre amount of Rs,60,00,000; that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance against Asif Paracha and one Ashraf Naveed and while filing written reply, they admitted the transaction and thereafter by using the complainant, instant case was lodged with mala fide.
While relying on Riaz Jafar. Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others' (2011 SCM R 1708) and 'Muhammad Nazir v. The State and another' (2012 M LD 1519) prayed that petitioner be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner previously remained involved in such-like cases therefore, being habitual is not entitled for the concession of bail as he was found guilty during investigation.
Prayed that bail be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The complainant alleged in the F.I.R. That he supplied iron-rods to the petitioner and he in order to satisfy his liability, issued the cheque in question which when presented before the concerned bank was dishonored, while, on petitioner's behalf it was argued that actually he never issued any cheque in favour of complainant Khayal Muhammad Khan rather this cheque was present with Muhammad Asif Paracha with whom petitioner had some business relationship and he also appointed him as attorney for the sale of a property which he by misusing his authority sold at a less price than the market value and petitioner along with his brother and sisters filed suit for specific performance against him and one Ashraf Naveed to whom property allegedly was sold; that said Muhammad Asif Paracha in his written statement admitted the transaction, however, with different version; that said Muhammad Asif Paracha in order to pressurize the petitioner used that blank cheque through the complainant of this case; that during investigation it revealed that initially the bank authorities objected about the signatures of the petitioner, however, it was dishonoured on the basis of non-availability of funds in the account.
6. Although it is alleged on behalf of the complainant that petitioner previously was involved in a similar case vide F.I.R. No, 147 of 2009 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Gujjar Khan, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted copy of the order dated 27-6-2009 whereby he was acquitted in the said case. The maximum punishment provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years' R.I. Petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial lock up after due investigation. Challan has been submitted in the court. The offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is designed to penalize a person who knowingly issues a cheque that it would be dishonoured but it is not a device or mechanism to recover the' disputed amount. For recovery purposes provisions of other relevant laws are available on Statute book, hence, while relying on the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner "Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeern Dar and others" (2011 SCMR 708) this petition is allowed. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing, bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.