Petitioner Amjad Alvi s/o Muhammad Shafique Alvi, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 448 dated 23.11.2011, registered u/S. 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Industrial Area District Islamabad.
2. The complainant Syed Altaf Haider Zaidi reported to the police that he was owner of Shan Marketing Services. Muhammad Zubair (co-accused) and present petitioner Amjad Alvi were his Store Keepers. When the stock was checked it was found that there was embezzlement In June, 2010 of Rs, 5-lacs from the store of Muhammad Zubair and Rs, 17,00,000/- from the store of present petitioner. Thereafter, both admitted their guilt and execute an Iqrarnama. In addition to it both persons also handed over different cheques, but when the same were presented before the Court concerned, they became dishonoured, hence the instant F.I.R. was got lodged by the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R, which has not been explained; that the cheques were obtained under threats; that the marginal witnesses of Iqarnama namely Muhammad Sajjad and Asif Shehzad have sworn an affidavit and have exonerated the petitioner; that the petitioner has filed a civil suit and has questioned the validity of cheques as well as Iqrarnama and the matter is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In order to support his contentions, he has relied upon 2009 SCM R 1488 and 2004 YLR 2251, Lahore.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner himself executed Iqrarnama as well as cheques; that the civil suit was filed after lodging of F.I.R.; that the issuance of cheque is admitted, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Mr. Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, Deputy Attorney-General contended that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employee of the complainant; that the petitioner executed an undertaking and purchased the stamp paper and the police has recorded the statement of stamp vendor under Section 161, Cr.P.C. who has supported the prosecution version; that huge amount is involved in this case, so the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail, learned Deputy Attorney- General has relied upon 2002 SCM R 442 and 2008 SCM R 807.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and meticulously gone through the record.
7. Undisputedly, the offence under. Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases, bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General have failed to point out any exception. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others Vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
8. The petitioner has challenged the validity of cheques as well as Iqrarnama in Civil Court concerned, which is competent to decide fate of the same. Moreover, the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for any further purpose. The bail cannot be withheld as a measure of punishment. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail' granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case. There is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. Whether the petitioner had any liability of amount for dishonoured cheques or not, needs further inquiry. At the bail stage deeper appreciation bf evidence is not permissible which may prejudice the case of either side at trial.
9. For what has been discussed above, a case for grant of bail has been made out. Consequently, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2-lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.