SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The allegation against the petitioner, Shabbir Ahmad, as per FIR No,1573/16, dated 28.11.2016, under section 489-F, P.P. C . , Police Station Raiwind City, Lahore is that he issued a cheque of Rs, 1,20,00,000/- to indemnify the claim of Anwar Ali (complainant), which he presented for encashment but it was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds; the complainant based his claim against the petitioner on an agreement-deed dated 09.03.2015, whereby, he agreed with Muhammad Zaman Sandho to purchase his land, measuring 8 Kanals for consideration of Rs,1,50,00,000/-; in the meantime, he (petitioner) too entered the scene and intended to purchase the same land of the complainant, which led to a settlement between him (petitioner), Anwar Ali (complainant) and Muhammad Zaman that Shabbir Ahmad (petitioner) would sell the land and deposit the amounts-received directly in the bank account of the complainant; he paid a sum of Rs,30,00,000/- to the complainant after bouncing of the disputed cheque and he still owed a sum of rupees nine millions to him.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the narration of FIR disclosed a meandering story, as Anwar Ali (complainant) based his claim about the property-in-issue on an unregistered agreement-deed, that he did not take to its logical end and allegedly struck a deal with Shabbir Ahmad (petitioner) and the actual owner of the land Muhammad Zaman Sandho, whereby this troica agreed to sell the above said land, courtesy Shabbir Ahmad (petitioner) but the money received was to be deposited in the bank account of Anwar Ali (complainant). It was a marriage of convenience between them, as it was only Muhammad Zaman Sandho, the actual owner, who could sell the land to any intended buyer and none of the complainant and the accused/petitioner had any valid claim in this regard as to receipt of the consideration amount, if any. It looks, as if the arrangement made by this triplet of once mutual cooperators well served their purpose for quite sometime but they probably developed some differences inter se, which resulted in registration of the instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Muhammad Zaman Sandho belatedly instituted a civil suit about the same land and sought an injunctive order from the learned civil court concerned due to which sale of the said land came to a standstill. Learned counsel for the complainant did not, however, believe it as such and submitted that it was some other property of Muhammad Zaman Sandho regarding which he had instituted a civil suit. Regardless of the divergent stances of the learned counsel, it may be seen as an important circumstance that the petitioner had been arrested in this case on 17.12.2016 and he has been in jail since then. The offence, he is confronted with is punishable by three years imprisonment, hence, not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like offences is a rule and rejection thereof, an exception. There may hardly be seen any such exceptionality, which may impede acceptance of the bail-plea of the petitioner.
4. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.