SANA ULLAH Versus State

ORDER

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J .---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.175 of 2006, dated 18-5-2006, registered at Police Station, Sargodha Cantt., under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the petitioner obtained Rs.1,10,00,000 lacs from the complainant and issued a Cheque No.731143 to return the said amount on 4-12-2004. However, when the cheque was presented to the bank on 6-12-2004, the same was dishonoured.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that F.I.R. was registered after a delay of two years. He submits that the complainant had financial dealings with Rana Khalid Mehmood, an employer of Agricultural Bank. Said Rana Khalid Mehmood obtained a blank cheque from the petitioner which he forwarded to the complainant as a guarantor. The amount was incorporated by the complainant himself. He further submits that in any case the petitioner was arrested on 2-6-2006 and ever since he has been behind the bars. The learned counsel adds that the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1995 SC 34 held that bail application in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause should be allowed unless four exceptions mentioned therein are found in a particular case. According to him, the present case does not fall within the exceptions mentioned by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited case.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted an Iqrar Nama which has been signed by the petitioner besides others and the same Iqrar Nama contains a clause under which petitioner accepts the liability, the subject-matter of the F.I.R. According to him, the signatures and issuance of cheque has not been denied by the complainant, therefore, the bail application should not be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the State endorses the contentions of the learned" counsel for the complainant and submits that during the investigation the petitioner has been found guilty, hence challaned accordingly.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is correct that maximum punishment for offence under section 489-F is not more than three years, therefore, the present case is not covered by prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. does not indicate that for what purpose Rs.1,10,00,000 were given to the petitioner by the complainant. The F.I.R. also does not show any effort on behalf of the complainant for seeking the return of the said amount. Anyway, without going further into details and in view of the above reasons, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.60 lacs (sixty lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction .of the trial Court or Illaqa Magistrate.

H.B.T./S-207/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted