' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 1278 dated 02.12.2015 Tegistered against him under Section 489-F, P.P.C. By Police Station Cantt Abbottabad.
2. In essence, as per contents of the FIR registered at the report of complainant, it was alleged that complainant had paid a huge amount of Rs,60,00,000/- being sale consideration of a plot, but the same was not transferred in his name and to pay back the sale consideration, a bank cheque of the equal amount of sale consideration was handed over to complainant by petitioner but the same was dishonoured on presentation to the concerned bank due to insufficient amount in the concerned bank account.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had already spent about five (05) months in Jail against the maximum sentence of three (03) years' R.I. For the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, where in such like cases, ordinarily grant of bail is a rule while denial is an exception. Further stated that petitioner has paid part of the amount for which the cheque was given, therefore, the petitioner was not under any obligation for the encashment of the cheque, as it has lost its sanctity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that petitioner had defrauded the complainant, thereby has deprived him from a huge amount by dishonestly handing over a fake and bogus bank cheque, knowing that petitioner account was deficient. Further contended that petitioner is also charged in another similarly criminal case, not deserves to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned counsel on behalf of the State in light of law and facts on record.
6. A perusal of the available record suggests to draw an inference that there was a business deal between the parties and the amount was given to the petitioner to buy a piece of land, therefrom a third person but the transaction was not concluded within the required period of time as agreed by both the parties, however, the sale consideration was not paid back and the alleged cheque was handed over to the complainant but .During the course of pendency of the trial of the case, part payment was made to. The complainant and rest of the amount had to be paid in installment, on account of amicable settlement arrived between the parties which. Was also not given final effect.
Without deep appreciation of merit of the case in hand, which is also otherwise not the requirement of law, while disposing of a bail petition, to avoid and save either party to be prejudiced by any finding of this court during the course of trial, however, generally in cases for which the prescribed punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
Grant of bail is a rule while its denial is an exception. No doubt, that an accused can claim bail as of right in non-bailable offence but on the other hand, bail can also be not withheld as punishment.
7. In cases where extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, palpable on record, when there was likelihood of absconsion, apprehensions of tampering with the prosecution evidence by accused, danger of repetition of the offence if the accused is enlarged on bail and where the accused was a previous convict, hardened criminal then, bail may not be granted, such principle of law is also enunciated by the apex court in case of "Subhan Khan v. The State" 2002 SCM R 1997 but in the case in hand not only the petitioner is remained in custody for the last five (05) months but also had paid part of the amount and also non-reluctant to pay the balance amount, the case of petitioner on such score 'also becomes that of further inquiry.
8. Therefore, for the reasons given hereinabove, this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees eight lac (Rs,8,00,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/ Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means, however, with a condition that the accused-petitioner shall have to pay the outstanding amount, as claimed by the complainant, within six months positively and if he failed to pay the same within the stipulated period, then the complainant would be at liberty to approach again before this court on the ground of being misuse of concession of bail.