AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Applicant Zulfiqar Ali son of Abdul Sattar booked in case Crime No, 526/2017 registered with Police Station Ferozabad, Karachi under section 489-F, P.P.C. approached this Court by filing the captioned application for post-arrest bail.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail plea contended that keeping in view the business relations between the parties the matter is purely of a civil nature which cannot be comprehended under the penal law. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. He further submitted that there is delay of one year and thirteen days in lodging the FIR which has not been explained; there is some dispute of civil nature between the parties but the complainant malafidely converted such dispute into criminal litigation by lodging the instant FIR; the said cheque was handed over to the complainant as security and complainant has not returned the said cheque by saying that cheque has been misplaced. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that issuance of cheque has not been denied by the applicant nor he has denied his signatures on the cheque; the applicant despite knowledge that the account is a dormant account issued the cheque in question. hence applicant is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh while adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant added that specific roll of applicant has been assigned in the FIR hence she raised objection to the grant of bail.
5. I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. It may be advantageous to mention here that for to constitute an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., the following ingredients have to be there: i) Cheque issued with dishonest intention. ii) Towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation and (iii) The cheque is dishonoured on presentation.
7. In the present case. the cheque for a huge amount was issued by the applicant with the knowledge that account is a dormant bank account and thus there was prima facie the element of dishonesty on the part of the applicant and that the cheque was dishonoured at the bank's counter is now part of the record of the case. Thus on all fours, the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C. are squarely attracted in the present case. Moreover, the complainant cannot be bound down to seek his remedy by approaching the civil court through a recovery suit when there is no legal embargo on him not to press into service the penal provisions against the delinquent through the registration of an FIR. There is no material on the file which could remotely suggest and indicate that the matter is out of the ambit of section 489-F, P.P.C. and is of a civil nature.
8. The mere fact that the offence for which the applicant is charged does not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. cannot per se make him entitled to the concession of bail.
Grant of bail in such like cases is not a rule of universal application as each case merits decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Reliance in this respect may advantageously be placed on the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442) and Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCM R 174).
9. It may not be out of place to mention here that the issuance of cheques which are in turn dishonoured has taken our society by storm so much so that such instrument is looked upon by the beneficiary with a degree of doubt and skepticism till it is honoured by the concerned bank.
Such practice has also eroded the mutual trust of the general public and there are instances when people shy away from accepting cheques even from trustworthy persons. Moreover, no one is supposed to commit the financial murder of another member a the society. Even otherwise, it is settled that for deciding the bail application the court has to observe the B tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required and it will not be fair to go into discussion about the merits of the case at this juncture. In this respect reliance is being placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211) and The State v. The Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163). Thus taking a tentative assessment of the available record, the applicant being prima facie linked with the commission of the offence is held disentitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this bail application is dismissed.
10.Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits.