Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Zafar Iqbal ChaudhryCh. Nawab Ali Mayo
2009 Y L R 1626
2009 Y L R 1626
[Lahore]
Before Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10858-B of 2008, decided on 26th November, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Alleged cheque was issued in the year 2007 while the case was registered against accused in 2008, one year after its issuance---During the investigation as pointed out by the Investigating Officer, it was found that the entire payment was made by accused to the complainant---Punchayat was stated to have been convened and on the proposal of accused the complainant refused to give or take oath on Holy Quran in proof of the allegation---Case of the accused, in said circumstances, fell within the purview of further inquiry and possibility of his false implication due to business rivalry, could not be ruled out---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed in circumstances.
Ch. Nawab Ali Mayo for Petitioner.
Muhammad Anwar Bhatti for Complainant.
Mian Ismat Ullah, DPG for the State with Shakeel Ahmad, S.-I.
ORDER
ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition under sections 498/ 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Rafique petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.583 dated 4-8-2008, registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Raiwind Saddar District Kasur.
2. Brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. is that he had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.4,50,000 dated 6-2-2007, to the complainant which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely on account of mala fide of the complainant; that in fact there was a business transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and the cheque was issued to they complainant as a result thereof but subsequently the entire amount was paid by the petitioner to the complainant; that during the investigation it has been proved through evidence that the entire amount was paid to the complainant, who did not return the cheque and only to pressurize the petitioner has falsely involved him in this case, and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail before arrest.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the alleged cheque was issued in the year, 2007 while the case was registered against the petitioner in 2008. During the investigation as pointed out by the Investigating Officer it was found that the entire payment was made by the petitioner to the complainant. It is also stated that a Punchayat was convened and on the proposal of the petitioner the complainant refused to give or take oath on Holy Quran in proof of the allegation. Keeping in view such circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry and possibility of his false implication due to business rivalry cannot be ruled out. Hence, this application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-11-2008; is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
H.B.T./M-18/L Bail granted.