' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Through the instant petition bearing Cr. Misc. No,196 of 2016, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in FIR No,09/2016 registered at Police Station Mehdiabad, District Kharmang on 22.09.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case as given in the FIR by complainant Ghulam Nabi are that on 31.08.2016 as per agreement petitioner/accused Muhammad Ilyas had issued a cheque bearing No, 1094305 Karakorum Co-Operative Bank Mehdiabad and on presentation dishonoured by the bank as there was insufficient balance in the account of accused and the refusal memo of bank is attached with the cheqtte and application. The accused be proceeded against for defrauding/cheating the complainant.
3. After completion 'of necessary investigation the accused/ petitioner was committed to judicial lockup.
4. The petitioner/accused applied for post arrest bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Skardu, who declined the same vide order dated 24.11.2016 and being dis-satisfied from the said judgment/order the petitioner has come to this Court for the relief of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation mentioned in the FIR are false and based on mala-fides and the complainant has turned civil litigation into criminal just to harass and intimidate the petitioner to bow to his demands. The learned counsel further stated that the offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable, while the offence under section 489-F entails a punishment of only 3 years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Per learned counsel grant of bail in such like offences is a rule and refusal is an exception and no such exception exists in the case of petitioner. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is arbitrary and not in accordance with law which may be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. On the other hand the learned Addl. A.G. Submits that it is a clear cut case of cheating and fraud.
Per learned Addl.A.G, the petitioner/accused was fully aware of that his account is short of balance and issuance of a cheque of Rs, 3,50,000/- to poor complainant was a designed offence, which dis-entitles the petitioner for bail.
7. Heard the parties and considered their respective submissions pro and contra. For the purpose of ready reference Section 489-F is reproduced hereunder: -- 489-F. Dishonestly issuing a cheque.... Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.
' Dishonesty has been defined in Section 24, P.P.C., which is also reproduced as under:--
24. "Dishonesty".---Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
8. The contention of the learned Court that the complainant instead of resorting to civil remedy has maliciously opted to lodge an FIR is misconceived. It is clarified here that, no doubt the complainant has an option to file a civil suit for recovery of amount in question being an appropriate remedy but at the same time for commission of an offence criminal proceeding could also be initiated, and both the proceedings can continue side by side as has been held in 1981 SCMR 237. The contention of the learned counsel that the offence does not entail the parameters which falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C, also does not hold the field as the tendency to issue bogus cheque is increasing day by day and innocent people are being defrauded to deprive of their life savings. I have already held in a judgment titled Wajidullah Bain v.
The State that issuing of a bogus cheque amounts to financial murder of a family and needs to be dealt with iron hands.
9. In result of above discussion, the petition is dismissed being meritless.