' Petitioner Sajjad Ahmad Waseem seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 235/2015 dated 17.04.2015 under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque for payment of Rs. 60,00,000/- which being on presentation was dishonored by the bank authorities.
3. Heard. Perused.
4. Record reveals that during investigation, it came to light that present petitioner had issued cheque for repayment of the amount which he had received from the complainant in presence of two witnesses mentioned in the FIR. In his petition, petitioner has also stated that cheques were issued by him to the complainant but according to his version, the same were given as security during business deal with the complainant. Huge amount is involved in the case and the I.O has also stated before the Court that during investigation, petitioner was found involved in the commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments referred to case titled "Mian Allah Ditta vs. The State and others" (2013 SCM R 51) in support of his contention that petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. In the authority cited at bar, it was observed that foundation elements to constitute the offence under Section 489-F, PPC were that cheque should be issued with dishonest intent; that cheque should be issued towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation and that cheque in question should be dishonored. In the case in hand the amount was paid according to the complainant, to the present petitioner in presence of two witnesses. For repayment of that amount, the cheque was issued which on being presented before the bank authorities was dishonored; hence, the authority referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, in my humble view, is not helpful to the case of petitioner. In the cited case it was noticed that an arbitrator was appointed by the parties to resolve some dispute existing between them who gave award and the cheque was issued by way of security when parties decided to settle the matter through arbitration. The facts of the cited case, thus were distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. Investigation is yet I to be completed and no mala-fide on the part of complainant or police is pointed out. A case of pre-arrest bail, is, therefore, not made out.
Consequently, this bail petition is dismissed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner by this Court is recalled.