' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J. --- This revision petition has been filed against to order of Additional Sessions Judge Dadyal dated 13.03.2014, through which after arrest bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No, 29/2014 under Section 489-F, APC was registered against the present petitioner on the written report of the complainant. It was stated that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs, 4,00,000/- on 01.09.2013 in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured due to insufficient balance. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2014 and the first post arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate on 25.02.2014.
The petitioner filed his second bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dadyal, which was also dismissed. Now, the present petitioner preferred the instant revision petition before this Court.
3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the alleged cheque was not signed by the accused. The cheque-book was in possession of the complainant who fictitiously signed the cheque. The matter in hand is of further inquiry that whether the cheque was issued by the petitioner or not? It has yet to be proved that the cheque was issued by the petitioner dishonestly discharging his obligation and knowingly that the said cheque will be dishonoured. The challan of the case has been submitted in the relevant Court and the petitioner has been sent to judicial lock-up. The petitioner is no more required by the police for investigation purpose. The offence under Section 489-F, APC does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition and to grant bail to the petitioner and referred the following precedents in support of the arguments: ' NLR 1999 Criminal 01 ' PLD 2013 Lah. 173
4. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner has issued a cheque which has been dishonoured due to insufficient balance. The alleged offence is non-bailable and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record and perused the precedents referred minutely and with utmost care. It is admitted principle of law that the offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years would be bailable offences and the accused would be entitled to bail for such offences. This principle has been laid down in the precedent NLR 1999 Criminal 01. In the present case the maximum punishment which can be awarded in the offence under Section 489-F, APC is upto three years. The petitioner has been alleged that he issued a cheque to the complainant which was dishonoured on presentation, it is a settled principle of law as well that the amount for which the said cheque was issued cannot be recovered from the accused under Section 489-F. Generally such-like cheques are used to exert pressure on the accused to surrender himself for illegal demands and such misuse of Section 489- F, APC for the purpose of securing money would be termed as extortion This principle has been laid down in the precedent Pa) 2013 Lah, 173.
6. To constitute an offence under Sec on 489-F, APC it has to be proved that the cheque wa issued dishonestly discharging of an obligation and 'with the knowledge that the cheque will be dishonoured later on. These facts need further probe and evidence and cannot be determined at bail stage. Mere issuance of a cheque which is subsequently dishonoured does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F, APC. Meaning thereby that the matter in hand is of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since 1.1.02.2014. The investigation has been completed and the petitioner has been sent to judicial lock-up and he is,no more required to the police for the purpose of investigation. It Will serve no useful purpose to keep the petitioner in the lock-up, At has been held in the precedent PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1207 that bail ,cannot be refused in the offence under Section 489-F, APO when no further investigation has to be made.
' Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner/accused deserves to be released on bail. The instant revision petition is accepted and it is hereby ordered that the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail provided he furnishes his personal and bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Dadyal and that, the petitioner is not required in any other offence or case.'
Bail after arrest granted.