MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs STATE and another

ORDER

Having remained unsuccessful in getting pre-arrest bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan; the petitioner Muhammad Shahid, being accused in case FIR No, 295/2016, dated 6.5.2016, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered with the Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan, has applied for pre-arrest bail to this Court.

2. As per contents of FIR lodged on the written complaint of Muhammad Irshad complainant, it is alleged that the complainant had good relations with the petitioner. The petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs, 11,00,000/- from the complainant, which he paid to him in presence of the witnesses and for payment of said, amount the petitioner issued Cheque No, 1565020943 in favour of the complainant but the same was bounced.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. According to the narration of FIR, there is dispute of rendition of accounts between the parties, which is civil in nature. There is nothing on record to establish, that the cheque was issued for repayment of any loan or fulfillment of any financial obligation, which is sine qua none to attract the provision of Section 489-F, PPC. I find these contours of the case to be quite conspicuous and relevant entitling the petitioner to bail when the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the maximum sentence of the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is three years, which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory; clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.7 Guidance is sought from Beejal and another v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J. 261).

6. Moreover, there is inordinate delay of more than four months in lodging of instant FIR, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Guidance is sought from Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v.

The State (2010 SCM R 949).

7. It appears that there is a civil dispute between the parties. In this regard I respectfully place reliance in the case of Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCM R 51) wherein it has been held as under: "Every transaction where a cheque is dishonoured may not constitute an offence. The foundational elements to constitute an offence under this provision are issuance of a cheque with dishonest intent the cheque should be towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation and lastly that the cheque in question is dishonoured."

In the attending circumstances, prima facie, alleged culpability of petitioner, would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Reliance is placed on Syed Mubashar Ali v. The State and others (2015 M LD 1266).

8. At this stage, prima facie the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and chances of petitioner's false implication with deliberation after consultation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. In such circumstances, the grant of bail is rule and refusal an exception.

9. Pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary relief is to be " granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motive. Guidance is sought from Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).

10.For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.