' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Yar Muhammad petitioner involved in six cases bearing F.I.Rs, Nos.171/28-6-2006 of Police Station Aabpara, 121/10-4-2006, 122/10-4-2006, 124/11-4-2006, 125/11-4- 2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C. And 123/10-4-2006 under sections 489-F/406, P.P.C. All registered with Police Station Kohsar, on his failure to seek post-arrest bail from the learned lower courts, filed above captioned criminal miscellaneous petitions. This single order of mine will dispose of all the above mentioned six petitions as the petitioner, offence alleged and the question of law involved therein are identical.
2. The gist of the allegation contained in F.I.Rs, is that in satisfaction of his debt, the petitioner issued cheques to the complainants, which on presentation, were dishonoured by the banks. Hence, these petitions.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier petitioner's post-arrest bail petitions were dismissed on merits upto apex Court of Pakistan. It has further been contended that petitioner has undergone major portion of the sentence provided for the offence charged and this fresh ground was not earlier available. The bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the apex Court on 2-7-2007 but till today there is no material progress in the trial as deposition of only one P.W. Was recorded on 2-10-2006 in case F.I.R. No,171, dated 28-6-2006. Lastly, it has been urged that there is no bar for filing repeated applications if the fresh ground is available.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the grounds that petitioner is involved in a series of such-like cases and there is no fresh ground available to him. The trial is already in progress. It has further been contended that on 1-12-2007 while framing charge in case F.I.R. No,123, offence under section 406, P.P.C. Was added for which punishment provided is upto seven years. The petitioner deprived number of persons from their hard earnings. Lastly, it is argued that aggregate punishment of all cases is more than ten years which makes the case falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any leniency.
5. Learned Federal Counsel has adopted arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainants. However, he conceded that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 11-4- 2006 and uptill now only one witness has been examined in case F.I.R. No,171, dated 28-6-2006 and there is no material progress in the trial.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides and have perused the record.
7. There is no denial of the fact that petitioner is behind the bars since 11-4-2006 and the punishment provided for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is upto three years, which means that petitioner has already undergone substantive part of his sentence i.e. More than two and half years. In a case-law cited as Makhdoom Javed Hashmi v. The State 2008 SCM R 165, the apex Court held that:--- "a convict who has already undergone almost half of his sentence may seek suspension of sentence in the interest of B justice keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case."
8. Moreover, it can only be determined after recording evidence as to whether offence of section 406, P.P.C., added while framing of charge, is attracted or not. It has also been argued that in case the trial Court proceeded to inflict consecutive punishment, then it is a case of punishment of more than ten years. I am afraid, at this stage, such-like presumption cannot be taken into consideration as the same is premature and exclusively the discretion of the Court. It is also a fact that after dismissal of the earlier bail petitions by the apex Court on 2-7-2007 there is no tangible progress in trial. Even after dismissal of bail petitions on merits, the same can be moved again in presence of any fresh ground. Reliance in this respect may be placed upon case-law cited as Ali Sheharyar v.
The State 2008 SCM R 1448 wherein it has been held that:--- "fresh bail application can be moved at a subsequent stage on the grounds which were not available at the time of filing of earlier application and order passed on the subsequent bail application would not amount to review of the earlier order on the bail application as section 369, Cr.P.C., does not apply to such orders."
9. For what has been discussed above, all the six petitions stand allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac with one surety in each of the above six cases to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.