' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this petition filed in terms of section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No,591/2014, dated 6-5-2014, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Iqbal Town, Lahore, at the instance of complainant, Waqas Tariq.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant, in the FIR, is that the petitioner got two motorcycles from him on instalments and for its payment, issued a cheque bearing No,4573130 amounting to Rs,110000 in his favour, which on presentation before the concerned Bank was dishonoured due to inactive of account On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with mala fide intention. Further contends, that there is delay of six months in lodging of the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered. Also contends that in fact the petitioner purchased motorcycles from the complainant on the basis of daily instalments and blank cheque, without mentioning the date and the amount, was given to the complainant as a guarantee, which was later on filled by the complainant with a different handwriting. It is argued that the petitioner has made the full payment to the complainant and nothing is due against him. It is further argued 'that civil litigation has been culminated into criminal liability, otherwise, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not fall, within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Vehemently opposes the bail petitions and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report with specific role and he deprived the complainant of his amount. Also submits that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, which can be granted sparingly.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General and gone through the available record.
6. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report but this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether ingredients of pre-arrest bail are made out or not. Undoubtedly, there is marked distinction between pre-arrest bail and post arrest bail and consideration of both are on different footing but after the pronouncement of judgment reported as Meeran Bux v. The State and another PLD 1989 SC 347, scope of pre-arrest bail has been widened by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. There is delay of six months in lodging of the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered. Moreover, perusal of the cheque in question, which is available on the police file, reveals that the same was filled in with different hand writing and there is a difference in between the filling of entries and the signatures of the petitioner. Otherwise, cheque in question was issued during business transactions, thus, civil litigation has been culminated into criminal liability. Culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial court during trial after recording of evidence. The punishment of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is three years, which does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In such like cases as per dictum of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. Needless to mention that liberty of person is precious right, which cannot be denied only on the basis of bald allegation. Sending the petitioners behind the bars would serve no useful purpose.
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to grant the relief sought for in favour of the petitioners. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16-9-2014 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.