MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State

ORDER

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.-- -On 18-11-2005 a report was lodged by Syed Tatheer-ul-Hassan, which was registered with Police Station, Cantt., Bahawalpur at No.313/2005 under section 489-F of the P.P.C. According to the facts narrated in the aforementioned FIR., Muhammad Hanif had received Rs.5,00,000 from the informant for doing business but when he demanded the amount a cheque of Rs.5,00,000 was delivered to the informant. When that cheque was presented in the Habib Bank Medical College Branch, no amount was found in the account of aforesaid accused. So fraud was committed. With these facts reported in the F.I.R., the petitioner was arrested on 20-1-2006. He had applied for grant of bail after arrest, which was dismissed on 15-2-2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Bahawalpur. Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case has falsely been got registered against the petitioner. Cheque number and date is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the alleged cheque was recovered from the accused by the police. He has pointed out to the recovery memo. Which does not contain any date, month or year. Learned counsel submits that this is a case of false implication and the petitioner has been mala fidely involved in the case. He is in jail since 20-1-2006 and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr. P. C.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the informant have submitted that the cheque was recovered in the presence of Fayyaz Hussain and Muhammad Sohail by the police from the custody of the petitioner, the accused, and the accused was doing business in private capacity as a part time business man and as the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.

4. After considering the arguments of all the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, it has transpired that cheque number, date, month and year is not mentioned in the F.I.R. When the cheque was delivered to the informant and before whom it was given is also not mentioned. It is very strange and astonishing feature of the case that after the registration of the F.I.R. cheque was got recovered by the police from the alleged accused and the recovery memo. does not contain any date, month or year when it was recovered. All A these facts require a thorough probe into the case, which can be made after evidence is brought on the record by the prosecution in the trial. Therefore, case of the petitioner being a case of further inquiry, I accept this petition and grant bail after arrest to the petitioner provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M-203/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.