-S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Accused had given dishonoured cheque to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal of purchase of rice and the accused had already paid part of purchase price to the complainant--

 2013 Y L R 374

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Accused had given dishonoured cheque to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal of purchase of rice and the accused had already paid part of purchase price to the complainant---Remaining amount of purchase price was withheld owing to a dispute as to the quality of the supplied consignment---Whether the cheque was issued dishonestly in the circumstances of the case, was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Accused had been behind bars for more than three months without any progress in his trial---Alleged offence against accused not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C and accused having no previous criminal record, he was admitted to bail.

Rana Shahbaz Ali Khan for Petitioner.

Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State.

Nemo for the Complainant.

 2013 Y L R 374
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Anwaarul Haq, J
IMTIAZ AHMED---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9745-B of 2011, decided on 26th August, 2011.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, Imtiaz Ahmed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.192, dated 16-3-2011, for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Muradpur, District Sialkot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case; that the matter between the parties is purely of rendition of accounts as admittedly there was a business deal of purchase of rice and the complainant admits that an amount of Rs.18,24,000 was paid by the petitioner to him. Further contends that remaining amount of Rs.2,76,000 was withheld because of the poor quality of the product and the disputed cheque mentioned in the F.I.R. was given to the complainant as a guarantee; that the offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner has no previous criminal record; that in the circumstances case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt and that he is behind the bars since 24-5-2011 without any substantive progress in his trial.

3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R; that he has deprived the innocent complainant from an amount of Rs.2,76,000; that issuance of the disputed cheque by the petitioner is admitted and dishonouring of the same is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.; and that mere non-falling of an offence within prohibitory clause does not entitle any accused to be released on bail as a matter of right.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly, the dishonoured cheque was given by the petitioner to the complainant in the backdrop of a business deal of purchase of rice and the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.18,24,000 to the complainant. Statedly remaining amount of Rs.2,76,000 was withheld as there was a dispute on the quality of the supplied consignment. The question whether the cheque was issued dishonestly in the peculiar circumstances of the case, is a matter to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. Petitioner is behind the bars since 24-5-2011 i.e. more than three months without any progress in his trial whereas the maximum punishment provided for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is imprisonment for three years and it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. Investigation Officer present with record states that the petitioner has no previous criminal record.

6. In view of all above, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate.

7. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.

MWA/I-4/L Bail allowed.