' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Johar/ complainant seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail, granted to the accused-respondent Zakir Hussain, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, through order dated 3-1-2013, in case F.I.R. No.610, dated 19- 11-2012 under section 489-F, P. P. C .
2. Facts leading to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner Johar Khan submitted written application to the SHO Police Station Khan Raziq Shaheed, Peshawar to the effect that the accused-respondent had taken sufficient amount in connection with business and in case of default, it was settled that a residential house would be given to the petitioner, however, neither the house was transferred nor the accused-respondent made any payment to present petitioner. As alleged, in order to settle the matter amicably, a Jirga was convened and according to the verdict of the Jirga two cheques bearing No.A-16784936 and 16784938 dated 1-3-2012 of Account No.03033930.10 of PICIC Commercial Bank Ltd., Peshawar City Branch Shuba Chowk, Khyer Bazar Peshawar City were issued to the petitioner amounting to Rs.2,000,000. On presentation, the same were rejected, for insufficient amount, whereupon the petitioner/complainant was forced to lodge the report.
3. After registration of the case, the respondent-accused applied for ad-interim pre-arrest bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which was later on confirmed through impugned order dated 15-12-2013. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court, through the instant cancellation application.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence, that the pre-arrest bail granting order is against the settled principles for grant of the same; that all the material aspects have thoroughly been discussed by the learned lower Court in impugned order, which were not the requirement of law; that the respondent-accused failed to show any mala fide on the part of complainant and submitted that the issuance of cheque was not disputed .By the respondent/accused.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that F.I.R. No.610 was lodged on 19-11-2012. That a suit No.8/1 of 2012 was filed on 8-1-2012 in the Civil Court respecting same cheques and prayer was made for transfer of property in lieu of the suit cheques. From the attested copies available, it transpired that the same suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 2-5-2012. Another suit bearing No.192/1 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner on 16-6-2012 for specific performance of contract, for recovery of Rs.8,288,980 and for possession of house in dispute, obviously on the basis of disputed cheque as well as on the basis of outstanding amount in connection with the business.
6. Before filing of F.I.R. No.610 dated 19-11-2011, suits were filed and one A is still pending before competent Court of jurisdiction regarding the same dispute.
7. The cheque in question was to 'Self'. The provision of Section 489-F P.P.C. Reads as under:-- 'Dishonestly issuing a cheque.---Whoever, dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque."
' The question whether a cheque issued to 'Self' can be said to be issued with dishonest intention or towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation, which is dishonored on presentation would seriously need consideration at trial, under the background of present case. Case against the accused-respondent, thus comes within the ambit of 'further inquiry' as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. It is settled principle of criminal law that presumption of innocence remains in favour of accused, unless he is tried, convicted and sentenced by a competent Court. Even otherwise, release of an accused person on bail does not amount to his acquittal. His judicial custody is transferred to a private person who stands surety and commits himself to produce the accused person before the Court. It is also well-settled law that offences not covered by the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Even otherwise, it is not in the interest of justice that a person should be sent to jail, by cancelling his pre-arrest bail and then be released by post-arrest bail, by which no useful purpose would be served. Three years sentence is provided for offence for which the respondent/accused has been charged, which does not come within Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consideration for cancellation of bail is quite distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law, strong, extraordinary circumstances and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation.
9. It is admitted at all hands that the investigation of present case has already been finalized and the challan has been submitted thus, physical custody of accused-respondent is not required at this stage for the purpose of investigation. No allegation has been levelled before this Court nor any material has been brought on record by the present petitioner regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by the accused-respondent. In these circumstances, no occasion has been found by this Court for interference with the lawful exercise of the jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of bail granted by the learned lower Court. Reliance is placed on Umar Hayat v. The State (2008 SCM R 1621), Mst.Noor Habib v. Saleem Raza (2009 SCM R 786), Muhammad Imran v.
Gohar Rehman (1982 SCM R 1068) and Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCM R 360).
10. Under the circumstances, this petition for cancellation is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.