1. ' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22-6-2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South in Criminal Bail Application (after arrest) No,612 of 2010, whereas Criminal Bail Before Arrest Application No,481 of 2010 was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge Karachi South and the same was transferred to the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi South, who rejected the same on 28-5- 2010, whereafter bail application, after arrest, was filed before the trial Court i.e, 1st Judicial Magistrate Karachi South and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11-6-2010, hence this bail application is filed by the applicant/accused above named in this Court.
2. ' Brief facts for the purposes of disposal of the instant bail application and prosecution story as stated in the F.I.R No,466 of 2010, registered on 19-10-2010 under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Preedy, Karachi, are as under:- "That I reside at above address and I have my own business. Mr. Imran son of Muti-ur-Rehman, who is proprietor of Messrs Al-Harmein International, had taken Rs,48,40,000 from me and in reciprocate had given two cheques, numbers mentioned in box 3 of F.I.R., which I had presented in Habib Metropolitan Bank on their respective dates, both cheques were returned due to non-availability of fund, therefore, came to Police Station for action. My claim is against Imran son of Muti-ur-Rehman, who has given me forged cheques. Request for action."
3. ' It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that the applicants/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motives by the complainant and the police. Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused has never issued the cheques in question which were lost and misplaced and an application to this effect dated 22- 2-2010 was submitted in the bank, which was duly acknowledged on the same date and the same has been filed along with instant bail application as annexure "E". Learned counsel further submitted that the cheques in question are forged and fabricated and even the alleged signatures are not of the applicant/ accused and the same can be verified if so directed by this Court. Per learned counsel, in view of the intimation to the bank by the applicant/accused about lost and misplaced cheques it was the duty of the bank not to accept such cheques and issue dishonoured slip particularly when the account of the applicant/accused was closed on 24-2-2010. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to annexure "F", annexure "G-1" and annexure G-3" respectively. Per learned counsel, the complainant is a sharp person involved in heinous crime and an F.I.R. No,615 of 2009 dated 27-11-2009 has been registered against the complainant at Police Station, Gizri, Clifton Town, Karachi. Copy of such F.I.R. Has been annexed along with this application as annexure "H". Per learned counsel, no offence under section 489-F is made out against the applicant/accused, who has been falsely implicated by the complainant, who has connections with the police and with their active connivance the complainant involves the innocent persons in similar false cases. Learned counsel further submitted that besides, this being a totally false and frivolous case against the applicant/accused, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, whereas the matter requires further inquiry, therefore, applicant/accused may be released on bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-- ' (1) Safdar Hussain v. The State 2005 YLR 1607; (2) Rana Ehsan v. State 2004 YLR 2675; (3) Anjum Sheraz v. The State 1999 MLD 844; (4) Shahid Aziz v. The State 2007 YLR 1810; (5) Muhammad Aslam v. The State 2007 YLR 1879; (6) Ghulam Qadir v. The State 2007 YLR 1495; (7) Major Anwarul-Haq v.
4. The State PLD 2005 Lahore 607; (8) Amanullah v. The State 2007 YLR .1120; (9) Sanaullah v. The State 2007 YLR 1280; (10) Muhammad Shafiq Khan v. The State 2009 YLR 257; (11) Muhammad Akram v.
5. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 497; (12) Amir Iqbal Chaudhary v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 155 and (13) Mst. Razia Begum v. The State 2009 YLR 87.
6. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant initially objected to the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that two cheques of huge amount issued by the applicant/accused has been dishonoured on presentation, whereas the applicant/accused after having issued such cheques concocted false story of lost cheques and closed the bank account immediately after issuance of such cheques in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of section 489-F are fully attracted in the instant case and since the applicant/accused has defrauded the complainant by issuing cheques in question with mala fide intention, therefore, the applicant/accused may not be admitted to bail. Learned counsel further submitted that, if the applicant/accused is to be admitted to bail, the impugned amount of the two dishonoured cheques may be directed to be submitted as surety before the Court to secure the interest of the complainant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following case-laws:--
(1) Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174; (2) Imtiaz Hussain v. The State 2007 YLR 1542; (3)Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2007 YLR 1543; (4) Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2008 YLR 1563 and
(5) Unreported order of Bail Application No,728 of 2010.
7. ' Learned A.P.-G. Has supported the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Khan v. The State 2005 PCr.L.J 1797 and Javed Ahmed and 5 others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1803.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, complainant as well as A.P.G and perused the record. It appears that during the pendency of the instant bail application when the matter was taken up for hearing on 25-8-2010 both the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and complainant, as well as learned A.P.-G., after arguing the matter at some length agreed that the Investigating Officer of the case may be directed, to verify the signatures of the applicant/ accused on the dishonoured cheques from the bank concerned as well as from Criminalistic Division Karachi. Accordingly, the I.O. Was directed to obtain signatures of applicant/accused in presence of First Judicial Magistrate Karachi South, where the case of the applicant/accused is pending trial. Original record i.e, Specimen Signature Card of the applicant/accused was summoned from the Habib Metropolitan Bank to be handed over to the Investigating Officer, who was directed to send the original cheques, the Specimen Signature Card and the signatures of the applicant/accused obtained before the trial Court to the Office of Forensic Division Sindh Karachi and seek verification of the signatures. It appears that such Examination Report dated 11-10-2010 has been placed on record, wherein the following opinion has been expressed by the Forensic Examiners:-- "The examination/comparison of the documents have revealed that the questioned Signatures bearing disputed mentioned above marked as Q-1 to Q-2 are in dissimilar with those of the routine/specimen signatures of Imran marked as R-1 to R-4 and S-1 to S-19."
9. ' In view of hereinabove facts and on tentative assessment of the material available on record, it appears to be a case of further inquiry and the prosecution case at this stage cannot be termed as free from doubt, whereas the alleged crime does not fall within the prohibitory clause. I am of the opinion that the applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of bail. As regards the amount of surety required to be submitted by the applicant/accused before the trial Court, in view of no objection by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.P.G. To the grant of bail subject to furnishing surety equivalent to the amount of dishonoured cheques, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has not seriously agitated this aspect of the case.
10. Under these circumstances, by a short order dated 15-11-2010, the applicant/accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,48,40,000 (i.e, the amount disputed in the case) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and these are the reasons for such short order.