MUHAMMAD AWAIS KHALID vs THE STATE

ORDER

' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner who is arrested in F.I.R. No,562 of 2007, dated 12-7-2007, under section 489-F, P.P.C. The F.I.R. Stands registered at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., petitioner borrowed Rs,10 lacs from the complainant who failed to return the same. When complainant pressed for recovery of the said money, petitioner dishonestly issued Cheque No,1664454 on 26-4-2007 to be drawn at M.C.B. Bank, G.T. Road. However when the cheque was presented for its encashment, same was dishonoured.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the complainant were business partners, for some reason they fell out, whereupon the complainant succeeded getting the instant F.I.R. Registered. According to the learned counsel, the F.I.R. Was registered after delay of three months; the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is a non- convict.

4. The learned Assistant Prosecutor-General, Punjab opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And he failed to clear his financial liability towards the complainant.

5.I have heard and evaluated the above contentions. During the cousre of investigation, the petitioner deniedissuance of cheque and his signatures thereon. The Investigating Officer sent specimen of the petitioner to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. According to the report, said signatures do not tally with the signatures on the cheque. The report reads as under:-- "The specimens have been seen. It is requested that the routine signatures, writings of the accused having corresponding words/letters, etc. From previously executed cheques my be procured and submitted along with the present set of samples for further necessary action."

' In view of the doubt created by the above report, the petitioner is to be benefited as benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Even otherwise, the learned counsel has rightly contended that the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

And the above legal position is not changed by the mere fact that issuance of cheque relates to a heavy amount i.e. Rs,10 lacs. Moreover, the petitioner has already spent several months in jail without being pronounced guilty by the Court. Thus, under the present circumstances, he cannot be denied bail as a punishment. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Itself divides offences into two categories i.e. Falling in the prohibitory clause and non-prohibitory clause. The offences which fall within non- prohibitory clause, in such cases, bail is normally granted unless there are some compelling and exceptional grounds, which I do not find in the instant case.

6. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.