HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI, J. - Muhammad Nawaz son of-Muhammad Aslam, the petitioner, by filing the instant second bail petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 288/09, dated 19.4.2009, registered at Police. Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad, for an offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Kashif Waheed son of, Abdul Waheed-complainant. Earlier bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7430-B/2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.7.2009.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner, according to the F.I.R. Was that the petitioner's father namely, Muhammad Aslam owe Rs. 7,18,000/- towards the complainant, when the complainant contacted the petitioner he issued cheque No. 2734402, dated 10.4.2008 amounting to Rs. 7,18,000/- qua U.B.L. More Mhuda Branch in favour of the complainant in presence of witnesses, namely, Muhammad Yasin and Khawaja Muhammad Nadeem, which, on presentation to the drawee Bank, had been dishonoured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact petitioner's father, namely, Muhammad Aslam allegedly had borrowed a disputed amount from the complainant, as such no liability of the petitioner was made; further contends that prima facie from the contents of the F.I.R. Offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Is not made out; that the petitioner was arrested on 20.4.2009 and challan was submitted on 21.4.2009; that since the withdrawal of first application there is no progress in the trial of the case and petitioner is behind the bar since five months; that offence does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has withdrawn the first bail petition and no fresh ground is given in the instant second bail petition. That the petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant and has tried to deprive him from his valuable property; further argued that petitioner, confess the signatures on the disputed cheque.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the record.
6. It is admitted that the petitioner is behind the bar since 20.4.2009. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Is three years. Since the submission of the challan there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bar as a punishment. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Whether the petitioner had any liability of Rs.
7,18.000A for dishonoured cheque No. 2734402 dated 10.4.2008 or not, it needs further inquiry. At bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible which may prejudice the case of either side.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 a (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate/IIIaqa Magistrate. However, learned Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial of the case within, a period of three months.