This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 2992/B/06, Crl. Misc. No, 2993/B/06, Crl. Misc. No, 2994/B/06, Crl. Misc. No, 2995/B/06 and Crl. Misc. No, 2996/B/06 filed by Liaqat Hussain petitioner.
2. In support of these petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially three cases were registered against the petitioner in which thereafter, compromise took place on 15.4.2005 in case FIR No, 262/05 & case FIR No, 266/05, that present FIRs were out come of compromise affected between the parties in case FIR No, 262/05, thereafter, petitioner was released in the said two above noted FIRs on 16.4.2005. He further submits that the Investigating Officer took into possession the cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner and he came to the conclusion that signatures on, those cheques are not of the present petitioner and this conclusion was drawn by him on the report of Bank Officer, thereafter, again compromise was affected in case FIR No, 266/05, that bail granted by learned Magistrate in case FIR No, 266/05 was cancelled by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, thereafter, petitioner approached this Court in bail before arrest against the order of learned Addl: Sessions Judge and this Court referred the matter to Hand Writing Expert FIA, Islamabad. According to learned counsel report of Hand Writing Expert is on record, which proves that signatures of the petitioner differ with his signatures on the second cheque but ultimately before the said report bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, thereafter case FIR No, 432/05 was registered against the complainant of instant FIRs for the theft of those cheques belonging to the petitioner by the petitioner and immediately, thereafter, case FIR No, 433/05 was registered against the petitioner and in that FIR bail of the petitioner was confirmed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, then, learned Magistrate referred the matter to FIA Authority at Islamabad in case FIR No, 433/05 and the report was that cheque does not bear the signature of the petitioner, that in all the above said FIRs, petitioners remained in judicial lock-up for about 4% months, that Suit for Rendition of Account was also filed by the complainant on 30.4.2005, that these five FIRs are the basis of cheques amounting to Rs, 57 lakh, that in fact petitioner was working with the complainant on commission and he had to take his commission from the complainant, that these five cheques were obtained on 15.4.2005 when petitioner was in police custody, that all these matters relate to rendition of account, that as the report of Bank Officer and that of Fornesic Science Laboratory was to the effect that signatures on the cheques have not been found of the present petitioner so the father of the petitioner applied to higher police hierarchy for the transfer of investigation u/S. 18 (6) of Police Order, 2002 and ultimately, investigation was transferred and action was also taken against the said I.O., thereafter, the new investigating officer took into possessions register, cheques books and other relevant material of rendition of account between the parties, that the said I.0 found the Zero liability of the part of the present petitioner, that a cancellation reports in cases FIR Nos, 262, 266 & 433 of 2005 were prepared and learned Magistrate discharge the petitioner in case FIR No, 266/05 but he did not do so the same .in case FIR Nos, 262 and 433 of 05, thereafter, the said discharge order was challenged by the Complainant before this Court and the re-investigation was struck down by this Court, that said application of the complainant was accepted and discharge order was set-aside by this Court and the reason for setting aside the said discharge order was that challan had already been submitted, however, this Court granted bail in that case to the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel has referred Section 489-F PPC and submits that there are two ingredients that's that whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, which is dishonoured on presentation. He submits that this obligation came on in case FIR No, 262/05 in which compromise was affected between the parties. Learned counsel lastly submits that it is a fit case of bail before arrest and interim bail already granted to the petitioner may be confirmed. He has relied upon 2004 YLR 2997, 2005 M LD 1348 and 2005 PLD 607.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that no specific ground on the part of the complainant about his malafide has been raised before this Court and in this regard, she has relied upon PLD 1984 SC 192 wherein it had been held that unless all the ingredients of bail before arrest are not fulfilled by the accused/petitioner bail before arrest cannot be granted. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the request of the petitioner before the learned Illaqa Magistrate at the time of physical remand asking the said Magistrate that he should be given to police on physical remand, so that he may enter into compromise. Further submits that real brother of the petitioner, namely, Sadadqat purchased the stamp papers on which the agreement was written while the father of the petitioner was guarantor of that agreement. Also submits that the moment petitioner entered into compromise he admitted his financial obligation. Adds that alongwith Section 489-F PPC Sections 468 & 471 PPC have also been added by the police. Further submits that the judgment, which has been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, was passed by my learned brother Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J: in cancellation of bail and that was in Bank Ordinance and the institution, which came under the State Bank of Pakistan while Pakistan Penal Code is applicable in whole of the Pakistan on every citizen. She lastly, submits that it is not a case of bail before arrest and the bail already granted to the petitioner may be recalled.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a very great length. As far as, factum of compromise is concerned, that has not been denied but it was stated that the same was obtained under coercion and pressure when the petitioner was in police custody. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced before, me remand paper/order dated 13.4.2005 where petitioner stated before the learned Magistrate that he should be given to the police on physical remand so that he may enter into compromise, thereafter, the stamp paper, on which the agreement was written, was purchased by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Sadaqat and his father was guarantor of that agreement and in consequence of that agreement, the cheques were issued, which were later on, found to be dishonoured and thereafter, the present FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, who is specifically named in the FIR. No malafide or ulterior motive has been argued before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner against the complainant. Moreover, on the one hand, petitioner on the basis of compromise got himself on bail but on the other hand, he claimed that the same was done under pressure and coercion and that is a matter of inquiry, which can only be held a Civil Court, where the Civil Suits are pending in this regard. During compromise, he issued the cheques, which were dischonoured; this shows his dishonesty towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Moreover, this is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out; therefore, all these bail petitions are hereby dismissed.