AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.----Since the applicant and the offence is same in all the captioned bail applications i.e. Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1618, 1619, 1843 and 1876 of 2020 are taken together.
In Criminal Bail Application Nos. 1618, 1843 and 1876/2020 the complainant is Gul Hassan Jan while in Criminal Bail Application No.1619/2020 the complainant is one Qurban Ali. The complainants have lodged the FIRs against the applicant Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Hussain under section 489-F, P.P.C., detail whereof is as under:- In Criminal Bail Application No. 1618 of 2020 FIR No.510/2020 at Police Station Gizri, Karachi In Criminal Bail Application No. 1619 of 2020, FIR No.557/2020 at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi In Criminal Bail Application No. 1843 of 2020 FIR No.392/2020 at Police Station Clifton, Karachi.
In Criminal Bail Application No. 1876 of 2020 FIR No.382/2020 at Police Station Malir Cantonment, Karachi.
2. Applicant Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Hussain booked in above FIRs, all registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., on refusal from the trial court, has approached this Court by filing the captioned applications for pre-arrest bail.
3. Record reflects that applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide orders dated 22.10.2020, 30.11.2020 and 04.12.2020 passed in captioned bail applications and today these are fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
4. Mr. Umair Bachani, Advocate representing the applicant in all bail applications submits that applicant is the victim of the circumstances and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant and complainant entered into a sale agreement of land and there was no other relationship between them. Learned counsel further contended that there is no partnership agreement between the applicant and complainant and the some is a fake agreement on the basis of which the applicant has been involved in this case. He submitted that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIRs. He further submitted that alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. Lastly, he prayed that interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed. To support his contentions, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the cases of Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCMR 51), Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2020 MLD 839), Jehanzeb Khan v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 1268), Abdul Rasheed and another v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ 123), Syed Hassan Ali Shah v.
The State and another (2019 PCr.LJ Note 159), Rashid All v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 91), Abdul Ghafoor Gondal v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 861) and an unreported order of this Court passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 329 of 2019.
5. Mr. Muhammad Noman Jamali, Advocate representing the complainant in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 1618, 1843 & 1876 of 2020 opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the applicant is not attending the trial court. He submitted that bail application earlier filed by the applicant before the learned trial court was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that applicant is habitual offender of committing the offences of such nature. He is involved in number of like cases hence applicant is not entitled for concession of bail. To support his submissions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1129), Malik Nazir Ahmed v. Syed Shamas-ul- Abbas and others (PLD 2016 SC 171), Khusro Mirza v. The State (2020 YLR 1239), Amin Iqbal v. The State (2013 YLR 2428), Nasir Ahmed v. The State (2010 YLR 2179) and the case of Mukhtar Ahmed v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2064).
6. Mr. Samiullah Soomro, Advocate representing the complainant in Criminal Bail Application No. 1619 of 2020 as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh while adopting the submissions of Mr. Jamali added that the applicant has dishonestly issued the cheques having knowledge that no amount is available in the account hence he raised objection to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
7. I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
8. Admittedly the earlier bail application filed before the trial court was dismissed for non- prosecution which shows that the conduct of applicant in appearing and pursuing the matter was not good. Further, tentative assessm ent of the record reflects that there is business relations between the applicant and complainant and in this regard the applicant has given cheques for business obligations to the complainant, which on their presentation before the concerned bank, were dishonoured. Being account holder the applicant was in full knowledge that how much amount is lying in the account. It may be advantageous to mention here that to constitute an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., the following ingredients have to be there:
(i) Cheque issued with dishonest intention.
(ii) Towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation and
(iii) The cheque is dishonoured on presentation.
9. In the present case, the cheques were issued by the applicant for fulfillment of business obligations with the knowledge that sufficient amount is not available in the account to honour the cheques and thus there was prima facie the element of dishonesty on the part of the applicant and that the cheques were dishonoured at the bank's counter are now part of the record of the case. Thus, on all fours, the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C., are squarely attracted in the present case. Moreover, the complainant cannot be bound down to seek his remedy by approaching the civil court through a recovery suit when there is no legal embargo on him not to press into service the penal provisions against the delinquent through the registration of an FIR.
10. The mere fact that the offence for which the applicant is charged does not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C., cannot per se make him entitled to the concession of bail.
Grant of bail in such like B cases is not a rule of universal application as each case merits decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Reliance in this respect may advantageously be placed on the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCMR 442) and Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174).
11. It may not be out of place to mention here that the issuance of cheques which are in turn dishonoured has taken our society by storm so much so that such instrument is looked upon by the beneficiary with a degree of doubt and skepticism till it is honoured by the concerned bank.
Such practice has also eroded the mutual trust of the general public and there are instances when people shy away from accepting cheques even from trustworthy persons. Moreover, no one is supposed to commit the financial murder of another member of the society. Even otherwise, it is settled that for deciding the bail application the court has to observe the tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required and it will not be fair to go into discussion about the merits of the case at this juncture. In this respect reliance is being placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211) and The State v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163).
12. Apart from the above, the documents placed on record by the counsel for the complainant reflect that applicant is habitual offender of committing such type of offences and is involved in number of cases. The record also reflects that conduct of applicant was not good as he was not appearing before the court and had sought adjournments on one or the other pretext. In the case of Muhammad Jahangir Khan and others v. The State and others reported in 2020 SCMR 1270, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "the impugned order whereby pre-arrest bail petition of accused persons was dismissed showed that case had been called repeatedly but neither the accused person nor their counsel turned up before the High Court, despite it being a pre-arrest bail wherein personal appearance of the accused persons was mandatory, in such circumstances, the accused persons were not entitled to the extra ordinary concession of pre- arrest bail."
13. Learned counsel for the applicant through his exhaustive and elaborate arguments wanted this Court to give its categorical and specific verdict regarding the applicant that he is not involved in the commission of offence and in this regard he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court as well as the apex Court favouring him but this Court is very much clear in its mind that no such precise verdict in criminal cases can be given as every criminal case has its own facts and circumstances. The case laws, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, are not applicable as the same are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
Thus taking a tentative assessm ent of the available record, the applicant being prima facie linked with the commission of the offence is held disentitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide orders dated 22.10.2020, 30.11.2020 and 04.12.2020 in captioned bail applications is recalled. The applicant is present in court he is taken into custody and remanded to Central Jail, Karachi.
14. Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits.
Office is directed to place copy of this order in connected Criminal Bail Application Nos.1619, 1843 and 1876 of 2020.