ZULFIQAR ALI Versus State

ORDER

SHAH KHAWAR, J.--- Zulfiqar Ali, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 131/2014 dated 5.3.2014, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Mailsi, District Vehari on the complaint of one Muhammad Riaz.

2. The prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR is that the complainant gave loan of Rs.800,000/- to petitioner and in return the petitioner issued a post-dated cheque in the like amount to the complainant, which was dishonoured on its presentation.

3. Heard.

4. The date of occurrence as mentioned in the FIR is 7.9.2012 whereas same was reported to the police on 5.3.2014. The cheque in question was dishonoured on 19.12.2012. This is on the record that the petitioner moved an application before the learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace Mailsi, District Vehari in the month of December, 2012. Later, after a considerable delay filed a Writ Petition No. 16561/2014 before this Court in which direction to the SHO concerned was issued for the registration of case.

5. The conduct of the complainant shows that he remained indolent in lodging FIR against the petitioner and delay in the same is unexplained.

6. Perusal of police record reveals that a blank guarantee cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of complainant on behalf of his brother who had business deal with the complainant. According to case Diary No. 26 dated 28.12.2014 got recorded by the police, actually there was a dispute of Rs.400,000/- between the parties out of which the petitioner paid the complainant Rs.200,000/-. It is also mentioned that an amount of Rs. 800,000/- was himself incorporated by the complainant on the cheque which was presented and was dishonoured.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case titled "Abdul Salam v. S.H.O. Police Station Ratodero and 2 others" [2011 MLD 540 (Karachi)], "Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others" [2011 SCMR 1719] and "Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others" [2013 SCMR 51]. It is held that the cheque in question had only been issued as security and fundamental elements of section 489-F, P.P.C. were prima facie missing. Hence, pre arrest bail was confirmed.

8. While taking into account the above circumstances, prima facie petitioner has been roped in the instant case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of complainant. Since the cheque in question is already in possession of the police and person of petitioner is not required to the police for effecting any recovery. Even otherwise the complainant has got alternative remedy available by way of filing suit for recovery against the petitioner in terms of negotiable instruments.

9. For what has been discussed above, the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

10. However it is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.

HBT/Z-3/L Bail confirmed.