SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mirza Farhan Baig, accused-petitioner through the instant application seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.82. Dated 22-4-2011, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore on the coniplaint of Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Awan.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he handed down a cheque of Rs. 2.2 million to the complainant, which was presented by him for encashment at the counter of Standard Chartered Bank, Gulberg Branch, but it was bounced due to insufficient funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case under a deep-rooted conspiracy as he had been abducted by the complainant side and kept at a secret place for many days, during the course of which the cheque book was obtained from the bank and the petitioner was made to sign the cheque in question, which ultimately became the apple of discard between the parties; the petitioner adopted the plea during investigation that he had left 'a written message in the frame of a tube-light at the place of his confinement and at this tip-off, the police/Investigating Officer raided the said place and recovered the written material, which supports the version of the petitioner; the accused-petitioner was found innocent during investigation and has been placed in column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., so he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner is a wicked and a clever person, who in connivance with the police has manoeuvred the recovery of written material so as to frustrate the prosecution case; the opinion of the Investigating Officer smacks dishonesty so, the petitioner may not be allowed to be benefited of the same; the cheque in question and the memo regarding return of the cheque for sufficiency of funds is a strong piece of evidence against the petitioner. Lastly submits that the petitioner's case does not call for further probe into his guilt, so he may not be allowed the relief prayed for.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, I find that first version of the accused-petitioner before the Investigating Officer was that he had been abducted by the complainant side and kept in confinement at a secret place for many days and during the intervening period, he was compelled to fetch a cheque book from the bank and after availability of the same, the cheque in question was fabricated/manoeuvred by the complainant side so as to create fake evidence against him. The petitioner also pointed out to the Investigating Officer in his first version that he had left behind a written message at the place of his confinement, which could be recovered and on this information a raid was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which led to the recovery of a written document from the frame of a A tube-light, which entailed detail of miseries of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation of the case in the light of respective pleas of both the sides and reached -a conclusion that the petitioner was not responsible for the crime reported against him by the complainant. The name of the accused- petitioner has been placed in column No.2 of the challan. The opinion of the Investigating Officer does not bind the court in any manner but its persuasiveness can be peeped into by way of abundant caution so as to assess its credit worthiness, though tentatively. The bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment. If on culmination of the trial, the prosecution succeeds in establishing the guilt of the petitioner, he may be taken in custody again to 'serve out the sentence.
Presently I find that case of the petitioner calls for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one-lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction. Of the learned trial Court.