Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous, petitioner (Muhammad Shahban ) prays for post-arrest bail in FIR No. 515, dated 16.09.2021, under Section 489-F PPC, registered with Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad.
2. According to the allegations set-forth in the FIR, on being failure to complete a sale transaction, petitioner issued cheque worth Rs.15,00,000/- which, on presentation, stood dishonored by the concerned bank, due to insuf ficient funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter is of civil nature which has been converted into criminal just to exert pressure; that it was the complainant who failed to fulfill his part of obligation under the agreement; that it was a guarantee cheque; that the alleg ed offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that petitioner is behind the bars since arrest i.e. 10.04.2021 while investigation has already been completed and challan has been submitted, petitioner is no more required for investigation, therefore, entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. Learned counsel relied upon case laws reported as 2021 SCMR 822, 2018 YLR
(Note) 131 , 2018 PCr .LJ 469 and 2020 PCr .LJ 1445 .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the issue of non-fulfillment of obligation under an agreement was never challenge d by the petitioner before any court; that petitioner is a habitual offender involved in so many cases of like nature; that there is no clause in the agreement to show that the cheque was issue d as a guarantee and that case of the petitioner falls within the exception, therefore, instant petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel placed reliance upon case laws reported as 2021 SCMR 1466 , 2013 PCr .LJ 1022 and 2011 YLR 1284 .
5. Learned State Counsel added that there is apprehension of repetition of offence as the petitioner is habitual offender and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Crl. Petition No.860-L of 2021 and Crl.
Petition No.529 of 2021 , petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. Record reveals that the petitioner is behind the bars for about six months while the punishment provided for the offence is up to three years, which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C. No improvement in the investigation is expected if petitioner remains in jail. Guidance is sought from the recent judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Jehanzeb Khan v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtun khawa and others" (2020 SCMR 1268 ). Guidance is also solicited from case law reported as Shakeel Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1) & Dr. Muhammad Tariq v. The State (2017 SCMR 1944 ).
8. It is settled principle that every crimina l case is to be seen in its own peculiar facts and circumstances and that while deciding a bail application only tentative assessment of the material collected by the prosecution is to be made.
9. In the present case, though the petitioner is involved in six other cases of like nature (Sec.489-F PPC) yet the fact remains that the last FIR stood regis tered in the year 2019 while it is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner had been keeping himself away from the process of law, declared proclaimed offender or repeated the offence in near past, therefore, the ratio set-in the case of "Muhammad Imran v. The State' (Crl. Petition 860-- L/2021) do not extent any help to the complainant due to having distinct facts as in the said case, petitioner was involved in eight criminal cases for same offence, some of them were registered after the registration of subject FIR while he had also been a proclaimed of fender for one and half year .
10. In view of above tentative assessment, instant Criminal Misc. is allowed , petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
11. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party .