This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 3498-B/2008 and Crl. Misc. No, 3729-B/2008. Accused in both these FIRS is the same and the allegation is also similar. Two FIRs stands registered against the petitioner, FIR No, 451/2007 dated 08.10.2007 and FIR No, 239/2007 dated 10 06.2007 both under Section 489F, P.P.C, at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha.
2. According to the F.I.R No, 239/2007 the petitioner had to pay Rs, 20,00,000/- to the complainant Muhammad Asif son of Muhammad Bukhsh for the repayment of the same, petitioner on 31.01.2007 in the presence of Faiz Muhammad son of Muhammad Afzal issued Cheque No, 750232 to be drawn at the Muslim Commercial Bank, Lak More Branch. The said cheque was presented to the bank on three different dates but it was dishonoured. When the petitioner was contacted by the complainant, he refused to return the money. According to FIR No, 451/2007 the petitioner had to return Rs, 20,00,000/- to the complainant Habib-ur-Rehman The petitioner on 08.01.2007 in the presence of witnesses Amjad Ali etc. Issued Cheque No, 750231 to be drawn at Muslim Commercial Bank, Lak More Branch. The said cheque was presented on three different dates to the bank but it was dishonoured by the bank.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases the petitioner had a business deal with Habib-ur-Rehman complainant in FIR No, 451/2007 and due to some dispute in rendition of accounts, malafidely both the FIRs have been manoeuvred. According to him the complainant in PM No, 239/2007 is an employee of Habib-urRehman complainant in FIR No, 451/2007. That the cheque book of the petitioner was forcibly removed by Habib-ur-Rehman and Habib-ur Rehman forcibly got signatures of the petitioners on two cheques that is why number of cheques are 750231 and 750232 respectively.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR and he has deprived complainants of huge amount of Rs, 40,00,000/-, therefore, these bail petitions should be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.
6. The record shows that the petitioner was arrested firstly in FIR. No 239/2007 on 10.6.2007.
Subsequently, his arrest was also entered in FIR No 451/2007, which was registered subsequently.
Thus the petitioner has been behind the bars for 11 months. Challan in these cases has already been submitted; therefore, the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation etc. Whether the petitioner has defrauded the complainants in the above two FIRs, or the cheques were illegally and forcibly taken from the petitioner, requires deeper appreciation of evidence which shall be done by the learned trial Court. The record does not show the opinion of the hand-writing expert that the amount was entered on the cheques by the same person who also put his signatures on the cheques.. This exercise is desirable on part of I.O. in cases in which it is alleged that blank cheque was stolen by the complainant or signatures of accused were obtained forcibly.
Even otherwise, in cases, which are not covered by the prohibitory clause, bail is not withheld as a punishment and normally it is granted.
7. This, consequent upon the above discussion, the above mentioned two bail applications are allowed. The petitioner shall be released provided he furnishes surety bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in each case with oiie surety in the like amount in each case, to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.