'S.ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---Bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,695/08, Registered on 24-9-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Naulakha, Lahore having been rejected by Mr. Muhammad Sahfiq Butt, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 2-1-2009, the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court for the same relief.
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant, Ashiq Hussain was himself involved in many criminal cases including a dacoity and being a proclaimed offender in those cases, never came face to face with the petitioner/ accused in the course of investigation; that as a matter of fact, the complainant who is the first cousin of the accused/petitioner had abetted a dacoity and had robbed the petitioner and the impugned cheques were part of the loot; that oncoming to know that the complainant was the main causer of the dacoity, a Punchayat was held where it was decided that the petitioner should rest content only on lodging Ruppt so as to safeguard his interest with regard to stolen cheques; that in pursuance of decision of the Punchayat, Ruppt No,4, dated 18-2-2008 was got registered at Railway Police, Jhang Saddar; that the complainant lodged F.I.R. No,655/08; under section 506, P. P . C. At Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore which was however, cancelled on being found false, that the complainant was involved in F.I.Rs, Nos.8/2009 and 4413/08 both under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore; that case F.I.R. No,1308, under section 392, P.P.C. On 31-10-2008 at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore and case F.I.R. No,409/08, Registered on 31-10-2008 under section 379, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Jhang and that the complainant had himself filed a suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000 on the basis of alleged cheques but despite repeated orders of the Trial Court, court- fee of Rs,15,000 was not paid and then allowed the plaint to be rejected vide order dated 19-12- 2008 passed by Syed Azhar Ali Jaffery, learned Civil Judge, Lahore without seeking any further remedy which was reflective of the hollowness of his claim.
3. On the above premises, it was claimed that the petitioner was an educated person, was never 'involved in any criminal activity earlier and was behind the bar since 24-9-2008 without trial. It was further submitted that the complainant being a proclaimed offender in serious criminal cases, there was no likelihood of the trial to find progress within foreseeable future. Learned counsel further argued that if tomorrow the petitioner is found innocent, he could not be compensated in any manner for his sufferance in judicial lock-up and conversely if he is found guilty, he could be appropriately punished. Lastly, learned counsel contended that the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Entailed punishment upto three years only. As to the F.I.Rs, referred to jn the bail refusing order dated 2-1-2009 as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, it was explained that those F.I.Rs, were lodged by one of the aides of the present complainant Ashiq Hussain and that dust was settled by the police when investigation was held face to face.
4. Grant of bail was opposed by the learned APG for the State on the ground that the amount involved was Rs,10,00,000 and that the petitioner had not got recovered anything of the sorts. He, however, could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, which were supported by documents.
5. I have considered the above contentions and gone through the relevant record carefully. There is no denying the fact that many criminal cases including a dacoity and theft stand registered against the complainant and he is a proclaimed offender. The police official in attendance admitted this fact. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about seven months and there is no likelihood of completion of trial within the foreseeable future. In the circumstances of this case, the punishment provided for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Will have to be kept in view in preference to the amount involved. Even otherwise, the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. The above facts were not brought into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore while refusing bail to the petitioner on 2-1-2009. I, therefore, admit him to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.