IN THE COURT OF (NAME OF THE JUDGE),ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, (NAME OF THE CITY)
Ahmad
(PETITIONER) VS The State
POST
ARREST BAIL PETITION No.570 – 4 of 0000 (YEAR)
O R D E R
29-09-0000
Present. Mr. Asim, Advocate. counsel for the petitioner
learned
DDPP for the state
Ch. Iqbal Adv.
Counsel for the complainant.
Record
produced.
The
petitioner Ahmad s/o Rashid has been arrested in case FIR No. 300/2000 dated
20-00-0000 u/s 489-F PPC registered with Police Station, (City) on the
allegation that he issued a cheque valuing Rs. 10 lakhs which was dishonoured
from the concerned bank on its presentation. .
2. The
learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever
with the alleged offence; that there is three years unexplained delay in
lodging of FIR; that the complainant in connivance with police got registered
this false case against the petitioner; that the complainant is illegal money
lender and complainant has received heavy amount from the accused as interest;
that the business has been damaged of the accused by the complainant; that it is a matter of civil
nature but the complainant has given color of criminal nature on account of his
ulterior motive; that the case falls
within the prohibitory clause; that petitioner is previous non-convict and
non-record holder; that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
The learned counsel for the accused has relied on 2011 SCMR 1708.
3. The
learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned DDPP (Public
Prosecutor) vehemently opposed the bail petition by contending that the
accused/petitioner became sick and was admitted in the hospital whereon an Agreement
was executed between the parties; that
the accused/petitioner has been taking time from the complainant for payment of
disputed amount and on his request the delay of registration of case was
occurred; that the accused has also issued several bogus cheques to other
people and he is habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant
of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on 2012 MLD 232 Lahore and 2012
MLD 799 Peshawar.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As per record available on the
surface of the file, the complainant has been doing business with the
accused/petitioner thereby some civil transaction has been going on between the
parties. The dispute between the parties is that of civil nature and rendition
of account is to be made and it is yet
to be probed and inquired that under what circumstances, accused/petitioner
issued the cheque to the complainant. There is delay of three years in
the registration of case without any plausible explanation. The
accused/petitioner is under medical treatment as per medical prescription. He
is a heart patient (copy of prescription is attached). The challan/police
report has been submitted and the trial has been commenced and the accused
cannot be detained further in jail for indefinite period. The offence does not
falls within the prohibitory clause. The accused is no more required by the
police for further investigation.
6. In the light of above
discussion, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further
inquiry and probe. Reluctantly, his bail application stands accepted and the
petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
trial court. File be consigned to record room.
Announced
29-00-0000 (Date)
(NAME OF THE JUDGE)
Addl.
Sessions Judge,
(CITY)
No comments:
Post a Comment