Through this petition, Muhammad Ramzan (petitioner) seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 384/2017, dated 28.7.2017, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered with the Police Station City Shujaabad, District Multan.
2. As per FIR lodged on 28.7.2017 by Muhammad Shah Jahan complainant, the allegation against the petitioner is that he borrowed an amount of Rs, 1098720/- from the complainant and for repayment of the same, he issued a Cheque No, 87243697 of said amount which was dishonoured on its presentation.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. I have scanned the police record with the eminent assistance of learned Law Officer and gone through the contents of the FIR. It is admitted position that the petitioner has issued a cheque with his signatures which was dishonoured on its presentation before the concerned bank. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR which has been lodged by the complainant on 28.7.2017. The authenticity of the aforesaid cheque is not in question before this Court. Even otherwise, the only lawful ground for the concession of extra-ordinary relief was of involving the petitioner by the complainant with malafide intention, has not been brought into the notice of this Court, which is prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Reliance in this respect is placed upon "Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State and others" (2016 SCM R 2064). The material available on the record was cogent and more than enough to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime. The petitioner has defrauded the complainant with huge amount. As per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427), it is held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief to be granted only inextraordin ary situations for ulterior motive. This act of the petitioner disentitles him from extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Moreover, the petitioner remained failed to show any ill will or enmity of the complainant to falsely involve him in this case. Prima-facie, there exists sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. All the contentions raised by the petitioner needs deeper appreciation of evidence that is not permissible at this stage. Guidance is sought from Munir Ahmed v. The State and another (2014 SCM R 1669) and Malik Aqeel v. The State (2011 SCM R, 170).
6. For the above reasons, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is recalled.