' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,3498-B of 2008 and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3729-B of 2008. Accused in both these F.I.Rs, is the same and the allegation is also similar. Two F.I.Rs, stand registered against the petitioner, F.I.R. No,451 of 2007 dated 8-10-2007 and F.I.R. No,239 of 2007 dated 10-6-2007 both under section 489-F, P.P.C., at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha.
2. According to the F.I.R. No,239 of 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 31-1-2007 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 F.I.R. No,451 of 2007 the petitioner had to return Rs,20,00,000 to the complainant Habib-ur- Rehman. The petitioner on 8-1-2007 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 F.I.R. No,451 of 2007 and due to some dispute in rendition of accounts, malafidely both the F.I.Rs, have been manoeuvred. According to him the complainant in F.I.R. No,239 of 2007 is an employee of Habib-ur-Rehman complainant in F.I.R. No,451 of 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. No,239 of 2007 on 10-6-2007.
Subsequently, his arrest was also entered in F.I.R. No,451 of 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 F.I.Rs,, 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 handwriting 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 Investigating Officer 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 B withheld as a punishment arid normally it is granted.
7. Thus, consequent upon the above discussion of 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 one surety in the like amount in each case, to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.