--Bail after arrest, grant of---Dishonoured of cheque-- Where a case, falls within ambit of non-prohibitory clause concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 367

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--This is petition for post-arrest bail and only tentative assessment is to be made and- deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible--It divulges from record, version in crime report taken by complainant, was that present petitioner purchased motorcycles from his company and in order to clear his liability petitioner has issued cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- which on presentation before Muslim Commercial Bank, was dis-honoured--In this way business relations with petitioner was admitted by complainant himself--On other hand version of petitioner is that having business relations cheque in question was issued as guarantee and same was never meant for encashment but comken by both sides it reveals that it was a business dispute between parties and said controversy would certainly be resolved by trial Court after recording evidence--It is further noted that no date and time has been mentioned by complainant as to when motorcycles were supplied to petitioner--Entire case against petitioner is based on documentary evidence which has already been taken into possession by police--Even otherwise offence with which petitioner is charged is punishable with three years R.I. or with fine and it does not fall under prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Held: Where a case, falls within ambit of non-prohibitory clause concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases--Case of petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. petitioner is behind bars since his arrest and his person is no more required for further investigation--No useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner behind bars--Bail was allowed.

                                                                                       [P. 369] A & B

2011 SCMR 1708 and 2009 SCMR 1488.

Rai Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Imdad Ali Chatha, D.P.G. for State.

Complainant in Person.

Date of hearing: 12.2.2019.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 367
Present: Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2752-B of 2019, decided on 12.2.2019.

Order

Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Nadeem, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 dated 11.09.2018 registered under Section 489-F PPC, at Police Station City Farooqabad District Sheikhupura.

2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by Waheed Ahmad complainant is that he had business relations with the petitioner and during said relation the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- and in order to return said amount he issued cheque for the said amount in favour of the complainant, which was dis-honoured on presentation to the concerned bank.

3. Heard Record perused.

4. This is petition for post-arrest bail and only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible. It divulges from record, the version in the crime report taken by Waheed Ahmad, complainant, was that present petitioner Muhammad Nadeem purchased motorcycles from his company and in order to clear his liability the petitioner has issued cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- which on presentation before Muslim Commercial Bank, was dis-honoured. In this way business relations with the petitioner was admitted by the complainant himself. On the other hand the version of the petitioner is that having business relations the cheque in question was issued as guarantee and the same was never meant for encashment but the complainant with mala fide intention and after receiving the entire amount has presented the cheque before the bank and got the same dis-honoured. From the aforementioned stances taken by both the sides it reveals that it was a business dispute between the parties and said controversy would certainly be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. It is further noted that no date and time has been mentioned by the complainant as to when the motorcycles were supplied to the petitioner. The entire case against the petitioner is based on documentary evidence which has already been taken into possession by the police. Even otherwise the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with three years R.I. or with fine and it does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Riaz Jafar Natiq vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) and Zafar Iqbal vs Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), ordaining that where a case, falls within the ambit of non-prohibitory clause the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases. In view of above, the case of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his person is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner Muhammad Nadeem, is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed