1. TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---By this single order I intend to dispose of the above three criminal bail applications filed by single applicant/accused, having similar facts and circumstances.
2. ' Brief facts for disposal of Criminal Bail Application No, 855 of 2010, arising out of F.I.R. No, 440 of 2010, are that on 19-7-2010 complainant Abdul Rehman son of Muhammad Ismail lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Boat Basin, stating therein as under:-- "I am residing at the above address and doing my own business. I am also in Mehran Tanker Company and doing the business of fruit with fatal Akbar 'son of Ghulam Akbar, against which he gave a cheuque No,6510028 of MCB New Subzi Mandi Branch of his Account No,1456010100007613, amounting to rupees 25 lac two thousand 820. which was deposited by us in our Bank Standard Chartered Bank Block-5, Clifton Branch, which was bounced. Now we demanded the amount, he tolerate and stated that he will not return the amount, do whatever like. Now I came for report against the above said person. Action may be taken. "
3. ' The facts for disposal-of Criminal Bail Application No,856 of 2010, arising out of F.I.R. No,446 of 2010, are that on 22-7-2010 complainant Jameel Akhtar Khan son of Saeed Akbar Khan lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Boat Basin, stating therein as under:-- "I am residing at the above address and working with Mehran Oil Tanker company as manager. Our owner Ahdul Wahab Sahib, and Abdul Rehman Sahib provided Rs,95,00,000 to Jalal Akbar son of Ghulam Akbar for Mango business, against winch: a part payment of this amount which is Rs,35,00,000 was given through cheque No,6510029 from his own account No,1456010100007613 MCB Branch New Subzi Mandi, which we deposited in our bank Al-Habib Clifton, Karachi, which was bounced. Now we demanded for the amount, but he is tolerating and also not return the amount.
4. Now I came for report against Jalal Akbar son of Ghulam Akbar and request for action."
5. ' The facts for disposal of Criminal Bail Application No,857 of 2010, arising out of F.I.R. No, 457 of 2010, are that on 24-7-2010 complainant Israr Ahmed Bumi son of Iftikhar Ahmed Burni lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Boat Basin, stating therein as under:-- "I am residing at the given address and working in Mehran Tanker Company as senior manager. I had paid an amount of Rs,55 lac for business of fruit to Jalal Akbar son of Ghulam Akbar against which he by adding Rs,10 lac profit had given a cheque of Rs,65 lac of New Subzi Mandi Branch cheque No,4616651, which was deposited by me in my account of Faysal Bank, which was bounced.
6. On the demand of amount he tolerating and failed to return the amount. Now I came for report against Jalal Akbar son of Ghulam Akbar for delivery of cheque, which ultimately bounced. Action may be taken."
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that all these F.I.Rs, have been lodged as a counter blast to some business dispute between the parties as Civil Suit No,1142 of 2010 had been tiled by the applicant against Abdul Rehman and Messrs Mehran Tanker Company. Per learned counsel the applicant in the course of business had developed complete trust in the complainants, who had access to the documents and his business including his cheque books. Per learned counsel the applicant/accused had already informed the police on 13-7-2010 and 18-7-2010 as to the theft of the cheques and even F.I.R. No,629 of 2010 was lodged on 16-7-2010 at Police Station Sohrab Goth against the complainants. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is 72 years old sick person and a scheme has been framed by the complainant to financially ruin the applicant. Per learned counsel the cheques in question did not contain the genuine signatures of the applicants/ accused and they were also not in the handwriting of the applicant/ accused and no explanation has been given for the delay in filing of F.I.R's. Per learned counsel the offence does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and due to the influence of the complainants and/or owners of Messrs Mehran Tankers Company an attempt has been made to disgrace and humiliate the applicants /accused and in this context police has been chasing the applicants /accused on the behest of the complainants to blackmail the applicants/ accused. Per learned counsel the challans have been submitted before the trial Court and there is no apprehension whatsoever as to tampering, of documentary evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses. Lastly he prayed that the interim bail before arrest may be confirmed on the same terms and conditions and directions may be given to the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously within a shortest possible time period. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following case law:--
(1) 2007 YLR 1495(Ghulam Kadir v. The State).
8. (2)2005 PCr.LJ 1773 (Ali Murtaza v. The. State).
9. (3)2007 PCr.LJ 1064 (Talib Hussain v. The State).
10. (4)PLD 2005 Lahore 607 (Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State).
11. (5)2009 MLD 512 (Messrs W.A.K. Limited through Manger Finance v. ProVince of Punjab).
12. ' Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that before the trial Court the applicant/accused had not mentioned in the grounds that the applicant/accused had not signed or issued the alleged cheques or that the cheques had been stolen. Per learned counsel as per the report of the concerned banks the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds and not due to the reason of stop payment, as such the ground raised by the applicant/accused in these bail applications appear to be an afterthought. Per learned counsel the said cheques had been dishonestly issued by the applicant/accused in satisfaction of contractual obligations and the delay in lodging of the F.I.R's. was only for the reasons that further opportunity was given to the applicant/accused to settle the contractual obligations. The learned counsel in furtherance of his arguments has relied upon the following case laws:-- (1)2008 MLD 1030 (Haji Ahmed v. The State and another).
13. (2)2007 YLR. 309 (Muhammad Javed v. The State)
14. (3)2010 PCr.LJ 1321 (Pervaiz John alias Pervaiz Masih v. The State and other)
15. (4)2009 PCr.LJ 1302 (Muhammad Afzal Javed v. Muhammad Akram and another).
16. (5)2008 YLR 947 (Muhammad Tariq Javed v. The State).
17. (6)2009 SCMR. 174 (Shameel Ahmed v. The State).
18. ' Learned A.P.-G. has also supported the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. Per learned. A.P.-G. the cheques have been issued by the applicant/accused and have been dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the contention that the said cheques were stolen is an afterthought.
19. ' I have examined the record and perused the case laws cited by the learned counsels. From the record it is evident that there was some business relationship between the complainant and the partners/associates of Messrs Mehran Tankers Company and prima-facie the cheques were allegedly issued to the complainants in settlement of the business dealings for which the applicant/accused has filed a civil suit and lodged F.I.R's. The cheques are of two different banks and dates and the applicants/accused has not given any plausible reason for not taking any immediate and serious action for the cancellation of the said cheques to avoid misuse of the stolen cheque books and had it been the intention of the complainants to misuse the stolen cheques they would have produced all the cheques on the same date and not given any opportunity whatsoever to the applicants/accused for taking any remedial action. The cheques were dishonoured by the bank(s) due to insufficient funds and not for any other reason and hence the contention of the applicant/accused that he had informed the manager of the bank about the stolen cheque books would require applicant's evidence to be recorded at trial. The applicants/accused has also failed to show any mala fide on the complainants as well as on the investigating agency.
20. ' As held time and again by superior courts that if any offence although not falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. would simplicity not justify grant of extraordinary relief of bail in cases relating to pre-arrest bail, as deeper appreciation of material available on record could not done while deciding pre arrest bail applications. Mere filing of civil suit and/or F.I.R's. by the applicant/accused against the partners/associate and M/s. Mehran Tankers Company by itself could not be considered as a ground for granting bail to the applicant/accused. The complainants have no mala fide intention to falsely implicate the applicant/accused in the cases and prima- facie the applicant/ accused has failed to show that the cheques were not dishonestly issued for payment of any obligation. The applicant/accused has also failed to show that the applicant/accused is seriously ill and such illness could not be treated in custody or his arrest would be seriously detrimental to his health.
21. ' The applicant/accused will be entitled to agitate this plea before the trial Court.
22. ' In view of what has been stated above the applicant/accused has not made out a case for confirmation of the pre-arrest bails and hence the pre-arrest bails granted vide earlier orders in the above criminal bail applications are hereby recalled. Consequently these criminal bail applications stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the above observations and discussion are only tentative and preliminary in nature and should not influence in any manner the trial Court in arriving at a just and fair decision, based on the evidence to be adduced at trial. I further direct the trial Court to decide these cases expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.