' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail before arrest it case No 86 of 2010 dated 9-2-2010 for offences under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Township, Lahore.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant purchased Suzuki Cultus Car from Sh.
Shafqat Ali and his son Arslan Sheikh (the petitioner) for a sum of Rs,5,00,000. The car had been leased from the Bank. It was mutually agreed that the lease instalments would be paid by Sheikh Shafqat Ali and the petitioner. In case, the sellers defaulted in payment of the instalments, they would be liable to pay double the sale price i,e, Rs,10,00,000. It was alleged that the Bank repossessed the vehicle on account of default in payment of instalments. The complainant filed F.I.R. No,1515 of 2005 under sections 406/420, P.P.C., in which the accused persons namely Sheikh Shafqat and Arslan Sheikh arrested.. They allegedly gave a Cheque, bearing No,1471420 dated 26-1- 2010 for Rs,2,50,000 to the complainant. The cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured. Since the cheque was signed by Arslan Sheikh, he was named in a second F.I.R. (F.I.R.
No,86 of 2010) alleging that he had issued a bogus cheque fraudulently and with mala fide intent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had earlier lodged F.I.R.
No,1515 of 2009 on the basis of which the petitioner and his father were taken into custody. They were subjected to pressure and third degree tactics at the behest of the complainant and two postdated Cheques No, KSB 1471420, dated 26-1-2010 amounting to. Rs,2,50,000 and No, KSB 1471421 dated 26-3-2010 amounting to Rs,2,50,000 were forcibly taken by them by the police.
4. The learned counsel points out that the petitioner had nothing to do with the transaction relating to sale of the car and was falsely implicated and while under arrest was forced to issue cheques for the so-called liability of his father. The learned counsel further points out that various other agreements/documents were also forcibly obtained from the petitioner and his father while they were in custody.
5. The learned counsel argues that the matter admittedly relates to a civil dispute between the petitioner's father and the complainant and the petitioner admittedly had no financial obligation towards the complainant. This is a case of false involvement in order to pressurize his father to reach some sort of settlement with. The complainant. He further argues that since the cheques were obtained forcibly by harassing the petitioner, the question of dishonestly issuing the cheques or the cheques being issued towards repayment of a loan or a financial obligation does not arise.
He adds that the police is bent upon arresting the petitioner to humiliate him in public and cause further harassm ent and pressure for his family.
6. The learned DPG for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application on the ground that there is sufficient material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had issued the cheque, which was dishonoured. They submit that the dishonesty is presumed where a cheque has been issued and has been dishonoured on presentation. They have also relied upon certain documents allegedly signed by the petitioner where the petitioner has allegedly undertaken to issue cheques by way of refund of the price of the vehicle in addition to penalty in substantial sums.
7. I have gone through the record and have examined the various documents produced by both sides. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that there was a sale transaction between the complainant and Sheikh Shafqat Ali; the father of the petitioner regarding sale of a vehicle. It also appears that the vehicle had been taken on lease from the Bank which was sold by Sh. Shafqat Ali to the complainant, with an understanding to pay the future instalments. Sheikh Shafqat Ali allegedly received a sum of Rs,5,00,000 from the complainant. Since the car was repossessed by the lessor Bank, the complainant felt aggrieved and lodged an F.I.R. Against Sheikh Shafqat and also impleaded his son Arslan Sheikh. It appears that F.I.R. No,1515 of 2009 was lodged against the petitioner as well as his father with Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore in September, 2009. According to the allegations in the F.I.R., the transaction had been undertaken by Sheikh Shafqat Ali and there was no specific allegation against the petitioner. However, it appears that the petitioner as well as his father were arrested by the concerned police and while they were under arrest, the petitioner issued two cheques in the aggregate sum of Rs,5,00,000. These cheques were apparently issued to settle the matter in terms of an agreement, on the basis of which the complainant undertook to withdraw the case and support the grant of bail to the petitioner and his father. Although, the petitioner contests the said agreement on the ground that the same was also forcibly procured, the possibility of the cheques in question being forcibly obtained cannot be ruled out. It is also noticed that the petitioner and his father have initiated civil suits in the Courts of competent jurisdiction placing the version of the petitioner on record that he had been forced by the police in connivance with the complainant to issue the cheques. From a perusal of documents on record, a distinct impression is created in the mind of this Court that the petitioner is not directly involved in the transaction, which forms the basis of this dispute and has been implicated in order to pressurize his father to settle the matter with the complainant. His arrest will humiliate and embarrass him which in the facts and circumstances of this case and a tentative appraisal of material before me appears to be without just cause.
8. It is also noticed that the petitioner would be humiliated and put through the rigors of being incarcerated in custody on the basis of documents that appear to have been forcibly obtained from time. The possibility of false involvement can also not be ruled out.
9. The police official, present in the Court, states that he has recorded the statement of all the concerned and collected all material information and documents. He, therefore, does not require the physical custody of the petitioner.
10. In these circumstances, I am inclined to confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation and appear before the learned trial Court as and when required.
11. The observations made herein are only tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the trial which will be conducted on merits and on the basis of evidence and material before the trial Court.
12. Petition allowed.