JEHAN KHAN Versus State

ORDER

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This petition for post-arrest bail arises out of case F.I.R. No.82 dated 2-5-2005 alleging commission of offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Chakwal. Arshad Mehmood complainant has alleged that on the strength of relations and dire need the petitioner on 25-12-2003 obtained loan in the amount of Rs.2,00,000 cash from the complainant in the presence of witnesses named in the F.I.R. The money was to be returned after a month. The petitioner failed to repay and ultimately wrote a cheque in the amount of Rs.2,00,000 dated 7-5-2004 drawn on his account in MCB Chakwal. On presentation the cheque was dishonoured with his remarks that the petitioner had closed the said account on 15-7-2003.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that maximum punishment for the offence alleged under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years. The petitioner has already spent five months in jail; no recovery has been effected from him and although challan has been presented but the trial is not in sight, the petitioner should be granted bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted forcefully that the execution of the bogus cheque is admitted by the petitioner who intended the same to be dishonoured because it was issued on his account that was already closed. Further more the learned counsel has submitted that offence in question under S.489-F, P.P.C. is cognizable, not bailable and not compoundable, therefore, maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment or fine or both must be considered in the perspective of the aforesaid characteristics. The offence in question is meant to check white color crime which petitioner has resorted habitually as evidenced by a number of F.I.Rs. registered against him for precisely the same offence, the commission whereof is admitted by the petitioner, as in the present case. The details of these F.I.Rs are given below:

(i) F.I.R. No.176 dated 4-9-2004 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Chakwal;

(ii) F.I.R. No.217 dated 7-8-2005 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Chakwal.

4. The grant of concession of bail in non-bailable offences is discretionary that cannot be demanded as of right. Reliance is placed on A the cases of Muhammad Siddiqui v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others 2002 SCMR 442 and Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized exceptional circumstance to be a good ground for refusal of bail. In the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of a series of identical crimes under section 489-F, P.P.C. The repetition of the offence alleged, stigmatizes the petitioner with habituality and, therefore, constitutes an exceptional circumstance weighing against grant of bail. In any event, the admission of guilt for the commission of the offence is also an exceptional circumstance which together with element of fraud inherent to the offence alleged makes the present case utterly unsuitable presently for the grant of concession of bail after arrest. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Unilever Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Rafique and another 2005 YLR 686 and Lal Hussain v. Muhammad Akber and 2 others 1995 PCr.LJ 946. Accordingly, this C petition does not make out the case for concession of bail after arrest and is dismissed.

N.H.Q./J-5/L Bail refused.