1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J. The applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.8 of 2013 registered at Police Station Tando Jam for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegation against the present applicant is that complainant Waseem Sadiq gave him Rs.300,000 for the purpose of business of motorcycles and further told him that the profit would be distributed equally but despite lapse of sufficient time applicant/accused did not return the amount to the complainant, consequently he demanded his amount from him but he kept him on false hopes and finally gave him a cheque bearing No.08692017 of Account No.00860024566101 dated 3-1-2013 of Habib Bank Limited Latifabad No.7 branch, amounting to Rs.300,000, which was presented in the Bank was dishonoured, therefore, the complainant moved an application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and under the order of Court F.I.R.
3. Was registered.
4. ' The accused was arrested on 8-2-2013 and his bail plea was not accepted by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Hyderabad and said order was upheld by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 11-3-2013.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is a business transaction between both the parties and applicant paid Rs.84,000 and also gave a golden ring to the complainant but no such receipt was given by the complainant; that accused is behind the bars since 8-2-2013 and even no charge has been framed by the trial Court; that the alleged offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such cases is always held as a rule and refusal as an exception; that no proof has been furnished by complainant before the trial Court that the present applicant was ever involved or convicted in any other case; that mere pendency of other cases against the present applicant would be hardly a ground for refusal of bail in cases where maximum punishment is not more than '3 years. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCM R 1488), Sultan Ahmed v. The State (2007 YLR 2723) and Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCM R 1708).
6. ' The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that grant of bail to accused in other case is not a rule of universal application and each case is to be decided on its own merits. Per learned counsel, the present applicant has also. Issued another cheque to another person for an amount of Rs.300,000, which was bounced and such F.I.R. Has been registered against him, therefore, he is a habitual offender and his case falls within the exceptions reported in 1995 SCM R 34. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the cases reported as Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCM R 174), Sohail Ahmed Babar v. The State and another (2008 SCM R 966), Naveed Maqsood v. The State (2012 YLR 674) and Riaz Jafar Natiq v. The State -and another (2012 M LD 232).
7. ' The learned D.P.G. For the State has supported the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant.
8. ' I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Of course, it is settled principle of law that precedent in criminal cases have no universal application because each case is to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. I have also gone through the citations relied upon by the counsel for the complainant. In the case of Shameel Ahmed (Supra) cancellation of bail order was not interfered on the ground that if an order granting the bail had been obtained by accused after suppressing the details of vital importance, the same could, be cancelled by the Court, which has passed it and the other main ground was that accused has remained at large for more than one year and in meanwhile had neither surrendered before the Court, nor had applied for pre-arrest bail. Similarly, in the case of Riaz Jafar. Natiq (Supra) bail plea of the accused was not accepted as he remained fugitive from law, but in the instant case it is not the case of prosecution that applicant/accused has suppressed the details of vital importance and he was-arrested after four days of the registration -of -the F.I.R. In the case of Sohail Ahmed Babar (Supra) bail was declined to the accused for the reason that charge had been framed against the petitioner .And the case had been set down for recording the evidence while in the present matter, according to learned prosecutor, challan was submitted in the Court in the month of February, 2013 and for last 6 months the accused is behind the bars and the charge has yet not been framed, as claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the case of Naveed Maqsood (Supra) bail was refused to accused on the ground that one day prior to issuance of cheque in question, he had filed an insolvency petition against 18 persons including the applicant of that case showing his malafiden, whereas in this case no such petition is said to have been filed by the applicant/accused, therefore, the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant have no relevant application so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned.
9. ' While, on the other hand, in the case of Zafar Iqbal (Supra) the honourable Supreme Court has clearly held that accused charged in criminal offence ordinarily could not be kept in custody for the purpose of punishment and it is observed that in case falling within the ambit of non- prohibitory clause, the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and could be extended to accused as a matter of concession.
10. ' In this case, the applicant has been arrested on 8-2-2013 on the charge of bouncing of cheque amounting to Rs.300,000. The maximum punishment of section 489-F, P.P,C. Is 3 years, thus the offence alleged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Mere pendency of an another criminal case or- registration of another FIR. Against the accused could not be held as a valid ground for refusal of bail until and unless it is brought on record that the applicant has been convicted in a case of like nature. In this context, further reliance is placed on the case of. Riaz Jafar Natiq (Supra).
11. ' In view of above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.