MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus State

ORDER

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J .---The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.612 of 2006, dated 17-7-2006 under section 489-F, P.P.C. The said F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore.

2. Briefly, accordingly to the F.I.R., the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs.43 lacs which, at the time of presentation, was dishonoured by the drawee.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in F.I.R. the fact that the petitioner was employee of the complainant was concealed. According to him, the petitioner joined the complainant's company as Sales Officer and ultimately left the employment in December, 2005. According to him, the company was selling substandard pesticides and for the same reasons, the difference erupted between the parties and ultimately the petitioner left the job. According to him, during the employment cheque book of the petitioner was stolen by somebody and a report, to the same effect, was lodged to the police on 23-8-2004. The cheque, in dispute, was taken from the same cheque book. He further submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory has also reported, that apparently, the cheque does not bear signatures of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner was required to inform the bank, it was not sufficient to inform the police regarding theft of the cheque book.

According to him, the Manager of the bank has reported that no such report was made to him, the Manager further informed that no instruction was received from the petitioner that the said cheque be not honoured or entertained. The learned counsel for the complainant further relied upon Iqrar Nama (agreement) between the parties under which a consignment of pesticides was handed over to the petitioner of Rs. 43 lacs, against which the said cheque was issued.

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation in this case has been concluded and the petitioner has been found guilty.

6. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The scope of pre-arrest bail is limited, the Court has to see if there is, prima facie, no ground to implicate the petitioner or the petitioner has been involved malafidely. The petitioner lodged a Rapt with the police on 23-8-2004, but he failed to inform the Manager of the bank regarding theft of the cheque book; ultimately the cheque was to be presented to the bank. Therefore, the story of the petitioner seemingly is not palpable. Another point to be noted is that Rapt of theft of cheque book was lodged on 23-8-2004, but the occurrence took place after two years. If somebody had stolen the cheque book in August, 2004, he would have used the same much earlier than the present occurrence. Anyway, without going into further details or taking deeper appreciation of evidence and facts, this bail petition is dismissed for the foregoing reasons. On insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that decision of this bail application shall not affect in any manner, trial proceedings before the Court. This observation is being made on request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though, the above principle is well-known and observation was not required.

H.B.T./M-609/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.