' Muhammad Arif, the petitioner seeks Post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 293 dated 11.9.2013 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at P.S. Mahmood Kot, District Muzaffargarh.
2. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner made out, issued and handed over two cheques bearing Nos.C.A.5306280 dated 30.12.2012 in the amount of Rs, 11,50,000/- and C.A.5306284 dated 01.3.2013 in the sum of Rs, 36,00,000/- to the complainant. These cheques were to be drawn on Muslim Commercial Bank, Kasba Gujrat, District Muzaffargarh. They were duly presented to the bank on 15.5.2013 but due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner, .They were dishonoured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that there is a delay of 10 months in lodging the FIR and no explanation whatsoever has been offered for this inordinate delay; that the cheques in question were to be used as a guarantee and were not intended to be presented for encashment; that the complainant and the petitioner were business partners who were running Murawat Petroleum situated at Adda Mehmood Kot, Muzaffargarh; that a dispute of sorts was going on between them regarding the settlement of accounts and that the cheques in question were delivered to the complainant just to address his concerns. As such no case is made out under Section 489-F, PPC. He further argues that the petitioner' has been behind the bars for over one and a half months, the investigation is complete and he is no more required for this purpose. He concludes his arguments by making the submission that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the case reported as "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State etc." (PLD 1995 S.C. 34).
5. On the other hand, learned APG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the grant of post-arrest bail, contending that two other cases stand registered against the petitioner; that a huge amount of Rs, 47,50,000/- is due from the petitioner and he is not to be allowed to go scot free after devouring it; that the trial of the petitioner is to commence shortly and it would not be proper at this stage to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record.
7. Apparently, there is a civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is the policy of law that the offences which are not punishable with 10 years imprisonment or above, bail is to be granted as a rule and refusal is to be an exception, especially when there is no danger of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence. At the same time, it has been held by the apex Court in Tariq Bashir's case (PLD 1995 S.C. 34) that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. As stated above, the offence with which the petitioner stands charged carries punishment of three years only, and as such it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, C r. P. C.
8. Unless a conviction is recorded against the petitioner, the registration of some other cases would not per se disentitle him to bail.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.