Bail can be granted even if amount in 489-F is excessive

PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 672 Present: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J. MANZOOR AHMAD--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 6810-B of 2013, decided on 19.6.2013. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--No doubt the volume of amount was some what excessive but fact remains that alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Petitioner was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation, therefore, by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period, the prosecution will not get any benefit--Bail admitted. [P. 673] A 2011 SCMR 1708, PLJ 2012 Crl. Cases (Lahore) 894, ref. Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M. Akhlaq, D.P.G. for State. Date of hearing: 19.6.2013. Order The petitioner Manzoor Ahmad seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 128 dated 07.02.2013 u/S. 489-F, PPC registered at P.S South Cantt, Lahore, on the complaint of Muhammad Hamid Ghauri on the allegation that the petitioner borrowed Rs.34,56,000/- from the complainant and for its payment, he issued a cheque, when it was presented for its drawing, the same was dishonoured; hence the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact between the parties, there are business transactions and the petitioner never obtained any amount as loan from the complainant; the Cheque was issued for a guarantee and the same has been misused; the petitioner is behind the bars since 21.2.2013, no more required for further investigation and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. 3. Learned D.P.G by opposing the submissions contended that issuance of cheque has not been denied and its dishonouring has also been prima facie proved on the record, therefore, the offence has been completed and the amount is some what huge, therefore, at this early stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. No doubt the volume of amount is some what excessive but fact remains that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 21.2.2013 and no more required for further investigation, therefore, by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period, the prosecution will not get any benefit. Having sought guidance from the case of Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar etc reported in 2011 SCMR 1708 and PLJ 2012 Crl. Cases, Lahore 894, the instant application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (A.S.) Bail admitted