' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---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 petitionersubmits that initially three cases were registered against the petitioner in which thereafter, compromise took place on 15-4-2005 in case F.I.R.No,262/05 and case F.I.R. No,266/05, that present F.I.Rs, were outcome of compromise effected between the parties in case F.I.R. No, 262/05, thereafter, petitioner was released in the said two above noted F.I.Rs, 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 effected in case F.I.R. No,266 of 2005, that bail granted by learned Magistrate in case F.I.R No,266 of 2005 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 Handwriting Expert F.I.A., Islamabad. According to learned counsel report of Handwriting 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 F.I.R. No,432 of 2005 was registered against the complainant of instant F.I.Rs, for the theft of those chequesbelonging to the petitioner by the petitioner and immediately, thereafter, case F.I.R. No, 433 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner 'and in that F.I.R., bail of the petitionet was confirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, then, learned Magistrate referred the matter to F.I.A. Authority at Islamabad in case F.I.R. No, 433 of 2005 and the report was that cheque does not bear the signature of the petitioner, that in all the above said F.I.Rs,, petitioners remained in judicial lock-up for about 4-1/2 months, that Suit for Rendition of Account was also filed by the complainant on 30- 4-2005, that these five F.I.Rs, 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 Forensic 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 under section 18(6) of Police Order, 2002 and ultimately, investigation was transferred and action was also taken against the said Investigating Officer thereafter, the new Investigating Officer took into possessions register, cheque books and other relevant material of rendition of account between the parties, that the said Investigating Officer found the Zero liability of the part of the present petitioner that concellation reports in cases F.I.R.
Nos. 262, 266 and 433 of 2005 were prepared and learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner in case F.I.R. No, 266 of 2005 but he did not do so the same in case F.I.R. Nos. 262 and 433 of 2005, 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, P.P.C. And submits that there are two ingredients that's that whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re- payment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation, which' is dishonoured on presentation. He submits that this obligation came on in case F.I.R. No, 262 of 2005 in which compromise was effected 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 PLD 2005 Lah.
607.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that no specific ground on thepart of the complainant about his mala fide 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 along with section 489-F, P.P.C. Sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Have also been added by the police. Further submits that the judgments, 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 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 F.I.Rs, have been registered against the petitioner, who is specifically named in the F.I.R. No mala fide 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 aretotally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out; therefore, all these bail petitions are hereby dismissed.