IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH AT

MULTAN

Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010

Zahid Sarfaraz S/o Karim Bux Caste Dhadyana Sayal

R/o Chak No 54/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari. Presently at
District Jail Vehari.
Petitioner…
Versus
1.The State
2. Muhammad Akram S/O Khuda Yaar Caste Qais R/o
Zaheer Abad, Tehsil Malsi District Vehari.

Respondents…

F.I. R. No: 158/2010

Dated: 26-06-10 at 11-00 A.M
Occurrence: 29-01-10 at OO-00 A.M
Offence U/S: 489-F P.P.C
P.S Chab Kalan, Tehsil & District Khanewal.
Date of Arrest 28-06-2010

PETITION UNDER SECTION 497

CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF
POST-ARREST BAIL.

Respectfully sheweth:-

1. That as per the information provided by the Petitioner,

this is the first bail application moved in this Hon’ble
Court on the subject in hand, however, earlier,
Applications under abovementioned Sections of Cr.P.C
have been filed with the Court of Additional Session
Judge Mianchannu, and in the Court of Learned Ilaqa
Magistrate Mianchannu, which were respectively
dismissed on 11-08-2010 and 14-07-2010.
 Copy of the Bail Application and Order dated 11-08-2010 is
attached as Annex-A & A-I & Copy of the Bail Application
and Order dated 14-07-2010 is attached as Annex-B & B-I

2. That story of the prosecution according to F.I.R is that

Respondent No 2 lodged a complaint with the contention
that Petitioner has issued him a cheque amounting to Rs.
1,50,000/- as consideration of a car, purchased by the
petitioner from the Respondent No 2, and the same was
got dishonored for the want of insufficient funds. Hence,
this F.I.R.

Certified Copy of the F.I.R No 158/10 dated 26-

06-2010 is attached as Annex-C
3. The entire story contained in the FIR is false, concocted,
malicious and vexatious in nature and has been cooked
up by the local Police in collusion with the complainant
Respondent No 2 to involve the Petitioner in the instant
case and the Petitioner pray for the Post-arrest bail, inter
alia, on the following

GROUNDS
a) That Petitioner has never purchased the alleged Car
form the Respondent No 2 against the consideration of
Rs. 150,000/-, nonetheless, petitioner has exchanged
his car with that of the Respondent No 2 by entering
into an agreement dated 23-04-2009 wherein it has
been agreed by and between the parties that the
Petitioner shall additionally pay an amount of Rs.
37000/- to the Respondent No 2 out of which Rs. 5000/-
were paid at the spot and Rs. 5000/- were agreed to be
paid on 01-05-2009. Remaining Rs. 27000/- were
agreed to be paid in monthly installments of Rs. 2000/-
each. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact has
been admitted by the Respondent No 2 by making his
statement dated 04-03-2010 before the I.O P.S Thingi
district Vehari. Copy of the Agreement dated 23-04-

2009 is attached as Annex-D & Copy of the

Comments along with the Statement of Respondent No

2 dated 04-03-2010 is attached as Annex-E.

b) That according to the story of prosecution as
narrated in F.I.R as well as in the Petition filed before
the learned Justice of Peace Vehari, the Respondent No
2 went to the house of Petitioner Six (6) months ago
whereby the Petitioner purchased the alleged Car from
the Respondent no 2 and Promised to pay the alleged
sale amount in next 6 months. It is pertinent to
mention here that version of Respondent No 2 came
for the first time on 11-02-2010 when he filed Petition
u/s 22-A before Justice of Peace Vehari. It could,
therefore, be said that allegedly the car was purchased
by the Petitioner on 11-08-2009. Thus there was no
need to issue a cheque in favour of Respondent No 2
by the Petitioner before the expiry stipulated time.
There is also no justification of Respondent No 2’s
demand to return back the said vehecal before the laps
of the agreed period of 6 months. Copy of the Petition
dated 11-02-2010 is attached as Annex-F.
c) That even the I.O, while applying for the Judicial
remand of the Petitioner on 07-07-2010 stated that the
story of the Respondent No 2 and circumstances of the
case are doubtful.
d) That notwithstanding the facts narrated herein,
Petitioner has also made a report on 31-12-2009 before
the P.S City, Vehari pertaining to the theft of cheque in
question and has sworn in an affidavit to that effect
also. Copy of the affidavit is attached as Annex-G.
e) That Petitioner has been involved in the instant case
with mala fide intentions to fulfill ulterior motives of
Respondent No 2. Respondent No 2 has also tried to
involve the Petitioner in another case with similar
offence on the complaint of his close relative/family
friend maintaining that Petitioner has furnished with
the complainant a bogus cheque of someone else.
Copy of the Petition before Justice of Peace Malsi is
attached as Annex-H, Copy of Order dated 15-03-2010
is attached as Annex-I. Certificate issued by the Bank
is attached as Annex-J.
f) That matter pertains to a fiscal transaction and there
has been an established business relationship between
the Petitioner and Respondent No 2. Furthermore even
the story of the revels that a trustful relationship has
been developed between the two sides. Therefore the
element of fraud and dishonest intention is simply
ruled out even through the version of the
complainant/Respondent No 2. Reliance is placed on
(2000 P.Cr.L.J 1230). (P.L.D 2008 Kar 212).
g) That even according to the Section 93 of “Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881” it was mandatory for the
respondent No 2 to serve the Petitioner with a notice
pertaining to such dishonoring of the cheques (if any)
prior to lodging the Criminal proceedings to prove his
bona-fide. Reliance in this regard is placed on PLD
2006 Lah. 752
h) That as the matter pertains to the fiscal
transactions, thus a civil suit for rendition of accounts
is a proper and efficacious remedy for the same.
i) That the FIR has been registered on false accusations
in connivance with the local police. Furthermore, if the
Petitioner be kept in jail and prosecution fails to prove
its case, the Period spent by the Petitioner in the Jail
cannot be compensated in any way. The Petitioner is a
respectable citizen and his further arrest will cause
humiliation to him and his family.
j) That alleged offence does not fall under the
provisions of prohibitory clause thus grant of bail is a
rule and refusal is an exception. Presumption of
innocence lies with the Petitioner unless Tried,
Convicted and sentenced by the Competent Court of
Law. Reliance is placed on 2009 P.Cr.L.J 497

k) That the charge if any against the Petitioner is

groundless and there is no chance of the conviction of
the Petitioner. Body of the Petitioner is not required to
the Police anymore and no recovery is to be
 effectuated from the Petitioner thus no useful purposed
is to be served having Petitioner behind the Bar before
Trail. Reliance is placed on 2004 YLR 2227.

l) That the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has

never been convicted of any offence and he cannot
even think of violating the law. Petitioner carries no
criminal history and his past conduct cannot be
negated for consideration of granting bail. Reliance is
placed on PLD 2005 Lah 607.

m) That the Petitioner is ready to furnish such

security as may be sufficient for the entire satisfaction
of this Hon’ble Court and undertakes to appear before
the before the Court as and when required.

Under the circumstances it is humbly

prayed that the Petitioner may
graciously be granted Post Arrest Bail till
the final decision of the case against
them.

Petitioner

Through:
Certificate
As per instructions this is the first
post-arrest bail application on the KHALID MASOOD GHANI
subject in this Hon’ble Court. (Advocate High Court)
132-Old Block
Advocate. Dist Courts Multan
CC No: 3792
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT
MULTAN

C.M No _____/10
IN
Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010

Zahid Sarfaraz Versus The State etc.

APPLICATION Under Section 151 C.P.C to dispense with
some certified copies of some documents.

May it please your lordship:-

1. That the above mentioned Bail Application has been filed in this
Hon’ble Court.

2. That certified copies of some documents attached herewith as annexes

of Writ Petition are not available at present. However photocopies of
the said documents are attached.

3. That the petitioner will submit the certified copies as and when
directed.

In view of the above it is therefore

humbly prayed that certified copies of the
documents attached with the Bail
Application may kindly be dispense with.

Applicant

Through

Khalid Masood Ghani

Advocate High Court
132-Old Block
Dist Courts Multan
CC No: 3792
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT
MULTAN

To

The Deputy Registrar,

Lahore High Court,
Multan Bench, Multan.

Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010

Zahid Sarfaraz VERSUS The State.

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition

as an urgent one in accordance with the provisions of

Rule 9, Chapter 3-A Rules and Orders of the High Court,

Lahore at Bench Multan Volume-V

Bail Matter.
Yours obediently,

Khalid Masood Ghani

Advocate High Court,
132-Old Block
District Courts, Multan.
CC No.3792
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BENCH AT
MULTAN

Crl. Misc No. _______ B/2010

Zahid Sarfaraz VERSUS The State.

INDEX
S Annexur Page
Description of Documents Dated
# e No.

1
. Urgent Form
1
2
. Bail Application

3 Copy of the Bail Application before

. Addl. Session Judge, Mianchannu A & A-I 11-08-10
and Order thereof
4 Copy of the Bail Application before
. Ilaqa Magistrate Mianchannu and B & B-I 14-07-10
Order thereof
5
Certified Copy of the F.I.R No
. C 26-06-10
158/10 with Batter Copy
6
. Copy of agreement D 23-04-09

7
Copy of Statement by Respondent
. E 04-03-10
No 2
8
. Copy of Petition U/s 22-A at Vehari F 11-02-10

9
. Copy of Affidavit G 31-12-09

1
0
Copy of Petition u/s 22-A at Malsi H 15-03-10
.

1
1
Copy of Order I 15-03-10
.

1
2
Certificate issued by Bank J 16-08-10
.

1
3
Application for dispensation
.

1
4
Power of Attorney
.

Petitioner
Through:

Khalid Masood Ghani

Advocate High Court
132-Old Block
District Courts Multan
CC No: 3792