TARIQ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Petitioner was refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib on 24-8-2006 in case against him vide F.I.R. No.186, dated 3-7-2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station City, Nankana Sahib. He has now filed the instant petition for the same relief.

2. Gravamen of the charge as it .Appears from the F.I.R. Is that petitioner issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,94,095 in the name of the complainant which on presentation to the Drawee Bank i.e. Muslim Commercial Bank, Nankana Sahib was dishonoured, leading to registration of case against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000, out of the cheque amount to the complainant and he is ready to pay the remaining amount in equal instalments within a period of 2 months in spite of the fact that the petitioner does not owe anything to the complainant. It was further submitted that petitioner is a Foodgrain Commission Agent to whom complainant had been supplying his agricultural produce. According to him, petitioner during the business transactions had been issuing advance cheques without owing any amount. According to him, petitioner was innocent and has been involved in a false case out of civil dispute.

4. Bail was opposed with the submissions that petitioner has been ascribed specific role of issuing a fake cheque and P.Ws. Have furnished incriminating material in form of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner was guilty of the offence and was not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Petitioner has placed on record 9 affidavits of different respectables of the area deposing that there is a dispute between the parties regarding supply of defective ice regarding which petitioner had issued an advance cheque of Rs.3,94,095. He also produced copies of his daily register showing that complainant had been dealing with him regarding sale/purchase of agricultural produce and lastly petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000 to the complainant on 2-5-2006. All this material made the dispute that of civil nature besides making the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry. Tentatively criminal prosecution has been initiated just to pressurize the petitioner to bring him to the terms of the choice of the complainant. Petitioner undertook to pay balance amount of Rs.1,94,095 in 2 equal instalments within a period of 2 months. Petitioner belongs to a business community and there is no chance of his abscondance or tampering with prosecution evidence.

Since petitioner has not denied execution of cheque in 'question hence his person is not needed for investigation purposes. Offence charged is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

And its punishment is alternative. Petitioner will face the sentence if ultimately convicted by the trial Court.

6.For the reasons noted above, this petition is allowed and the bail already granted to the petitioner on 6-9-2006 is confirmed but he will join police investigation, as and when required through a written requisition.