MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs The STATE and another

' SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Having unsuccessful in obtaining bail from the two courts below, petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Khan, who is accused in case F.I.R. No.679, dated 5-9-2013, under sections 489- F/420, P.P.C. Of Police Station City, Bannu has come to this Court for the same relief.

2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner as per F.I.R. Referred to above are that he was having a business with the complainant Sher Azam and that in the same series, he issued him a cheque bearing No.13994928 dated 23-7-2013 amount to Rs.53,00,000 for its encashment in Allied Bank Chai Bazar Branch Bannu, which on presentation to the authority concerned was dishonoured on the ground that he (accused/petitioner) was having insufficient amount in the account for which the impugned cheque was issued, whereafter, the complainant moved an application to the local police for legal proceedings, resultantly, the above mentioned F.I.R., was registered against the accused/petitioner.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Admittedly section 420, P.P.C., is bailable and so far as section 489-F, P.P.C. Is concerned its maximum punishment is three years and thus the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Moreover, the accused/petitioner is behind the bars for the last one month, investigation in the instant case is complete, the case is ready for trial and as such he is no more Nquired to the local police for further investigation.

5. In case "Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others" (2011 SCM R 1708), it is observed by the apex Court that:- "S. 489-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Issue of cheque dishonestly---Bail, grant of--- Non-prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Allegation against accused was that he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.20 million, which was dishonoured on presenting in bank---Effect---Where a case fell within non-prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. The concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only denied in exceptional cases---Bail was allowed."

' Reference is also made to case-law, "Zafar lqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others" (2009 SCM R 1488).

6. While going through the record I do not find this be a case where it should be refused as an exception, resultantly, the petition is allowed and accordingly the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.5,00,000 (Five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.R. (Judicial) of this Court. Sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.