KASHIF KHAN vs THE STATE

ORDER

' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks, post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R.

No,404 of 2008, dated 8-4-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore.

2. As per the contents of the F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque to the complainant, which could not be encashed and was dishonoured.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the false, and fabricated case has been registered against the petitioner; that from the facts and circumstances of the case the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is not made out. It is further contended that the stand of the complainant himself is that the petitioner had business dealings with him and in such like cases, it is a settled law of the superior Courts that where business transactions are admitted, bail is not to be withheld. Reliance is placed on 2005 PCr.LJ 677 and 2004 YLR 2675. It is also stated that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in connection with business transaction, therefore, the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C.

Are not attracted against the petitioner. It is further stated that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. It is further stated that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 14 months but not even a single witness has been recorded; nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, bail petition has been opposed by the Assistant Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. It is stated that the petitioner has not denied the issuance of cheque in favour of complainant; that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are other cases against the petitioner registered under section 489-F, P.P.C.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that it is a case of business dealing and transaction between the petitioner and the complainant; therefore, the matter between the petitioner and the complainant is that of civil nature. Moreover, the offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The maximum punishment provided for the offence is three years whereas the petitioner is behind the bars for the last fourteen months and there is no progress in the trial and the continued custody of the petitioner is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose rather same would amount to punishment before conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence. Moreover, where the business transactions are admitted the Courts have allowed bail and in this regard, reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Akbar v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 677, Rana Ehsan v. The State 2004 YLR 2675, Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State PLD 2005 Lah.

607 and Haq Nawaz Khan v. The State 2006 YLR 50. Involvement of the accused/petitioner in a number of cases is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. Pendency of other cases of similar nature against the petitioner without showing his conviction therein is not sufficient to refuse discretionary relief of bail to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the cases of Aftab Hussain v. The State 2004 SCMR 1467, Sher alias Shera and another v. The State 1999 MLD 1643 and Karim Bux v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1802.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with this surety in the like amosunt to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.