Ali Versus The State
00.00.0000.
Present:
Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned ADPP for the State.
Police Officer along with record.
Learned counsel for the complainant.
The instant petition for bail after arrest has
been filed in Case FIR No.000/0000 dated 17.06.0000 U/S 489-F PPC P.S. ABC, XYZ.
2. Succinctly facts giving rise of lodging of
the FIR are that the complainant deals in sale and purchase of grain bags. The
petitioner/accused used to take grain on credit from the complainant. Such a
way the complainant has business deal with the petitioner/accused and in this
connection amount Rs.2,630,000/- was outstanding against the petitioner/accused
for payment of which he handed over a cheque worth Rs.2,630,000/- dated 05.01.0000
which was presented in the concerned bank and same was dishonoured. Hence, the
case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the story of FIR is false, frivolous as petitioner is innocent
person. That there is inordinate delay of four months in lodging of the FIR. He
has further contended that cheque in question was stolen by one Haji ( an
employee) from his office along with
blank other cheques and the instant cheque has been filled by the complainant
himself and himself endorsed the signatures and cheque was not dishonoured due
to insufficient funds but was dishonoured due to signatures differ. That case
is open to further inquiry and mere absconsion of the petitioner is not a
hurdle in the grant of bail. That the petitioner has filed civil suit for the cancellation
of the said cheque and other cheques which is pending adjudication in the civil
court, XYZ. That during the course of investigation nothing has been recovered
from the possession of the petitioner and he is ready to furnish bail bonds as
per satisfaction of this court. He has further contended that I.O. has not
conducted the investigation properly and in this context the Hon’ble Lahore
High Court, Lahore
has given direction to I.O. that even then he has not properly investigated the
matter and till today he has not verified the signatures of the petitioner from
the finger expert. He has placed reliance on the esteemed judgments reported as
“2013 YLR
2079, PLD 2013 2781, PLD 2013 Lahore 173, 2012 YLR 2789”
and has finally prayed for acceptance of the instant bail application.
4. On the other hand, learned Public
Prosecutor for the state assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently
opposed the bail petition and has contended that the petitioner is specifically
nominated in the FIR. He has further contended that the matter of huge amount
is involved in this case. So far as the contention of the petitioner about
theft of cheques is concerned, petitioner/accused filed an application U/S
22-A/22-B of Cr.P.C. for registration of case which was dismissed by Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace/Addl, Sessions Judge, XYZ vide order dated 00.00.0000. It is
further contended by him that civil suit has been filed malafidely after lapse
of about three months and all of the facts depict that the petitioner/accused
remained trying to create his defence but he remained failed in this respect.
There is no element of further inquiry in the instant case. Hence, he is not
entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is evident from the record that the
petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of
issuing cheque No.0000000000000000 valuing Rs.26,30,000/- dated 00.00.0000
which was allegedly dishonoured by the concerned bank on its presentation. It
is pertinent to mention here that civil suit was filed on 00.00.0014 whereas,
petition U/S 22-A/22-B of Cr.P.C. was filed on 00.00.0014. Whereas, the instant
FIR was got registered on 00.00.0013. Meaning thereby that both the said suit
as well as petition U/S 22-A/22-B of Cr.P.C. were filed after lapse of about
three months from the date of FIR and seven months after the date of
occurrence. It is also pertinent to mention here that mere pendency of
civil suit is not suffice to bring the case of present petitioner in the ambit
of further inquiry. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course
of investigation the present petitioner was declared guilty. Admittedly the
offence U/S 489-F PPC is maximum punishable up to three years R.I. and
ordinarily in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an
exception. The Legislature has intentionally kept this offence as non-bailable
and it is consistently been held by the August Supreme Court that in non-bailable
offences grant of bail is not the right of accused and it is a concession and
grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibitory clause of
proviso 2 of section 497 of Cr.P.C. is not a rule of universal application.
Each case is to be seen through its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Grant of bail, no doubt, is discretion granted to a court
but its exercise cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse. I have gone through
the judgments tendered by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused which
dissimulate with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In
view of the above circumstances, when the petitioner is specifically nominated
in the instant FIR with the allegation of issuing cheque of huge amount which
was dishonoured by the concerned bank. There is nothing on the record which brings
the case of the present petitioner in the ambit of further inquiry. Hence,
petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. Resultantly, finding no
merit in this petition same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record
room after its due completion.
Announced.
Date
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment