Through the instant petition, the Petitio ner (Muhammad Tahir Qureshi) is seek ing post-arrest bail in FIR No. 696/2021 dated 09.10.2021 registered for the offence under Section 489-F , PPC with Police Station Golra Sharif, Islamabad. Petitioner 's similar request has already been declined by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-W est, Islamabad vide orders dated 20.10.2021 and 12.11.2021, respectively .
2. The facts as per contents of the FIR are that the Accused/Petitioner [Muhammad Tahir Qureshi] borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000,000/ (rupees ten million) from the Complainant (Shams ul-Ahad) and issued cheque bearing No. 67835458 of Allied Bank Limited, G-9 Markaz, Islamabad amounting to Rs. 4,000,000/- (rupees four million) for repayment of the said amount. However, said cheque was dishonored when deposited by the Complainant in his account in Meezan Bank, E-11 Branch, Islamabad due to insufficient funds. Complainant informed the Petitioner about dishonor of the cheque and asked for return of his amount but Petitioner refused to pay the borrowed amount.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay of about thirteen days in registration of FIR, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The counsel further submitted that the cheque was dated 12-07-2021 whereas it was presented on 27-09-2021 when the Petitioner was already under arrest in another FIR lodged by the same Complainant in respect of another cheque and the said delay in presenting the cheque for encashment is also unexplained. He stated that the cheque has been obtained from the Petitioner fraudulently and that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel also produced copy of a Sale Agreement executed between the parties regarding a house and submitted that the dispute between the parties is regarding such sale agreement in respect of which the Complainant has already filed a civil suit against the Petitioner which is pending whereas there is no documentary evidence of any loan that was allegedly given by the Complainant to the Petitioner. He argued that the alleged offence does not come under the prohibitory clause; that there is no apprehension that Petitioner will avoid the process of law if released on bail by this Honourable Court; that there is no conviction on record against the Petitioner; that the investigation has been completed and the Petitioner is not required for any investigation; that the Petitioner is almost 70 years of age and suffering from ailments; and that the Petitioner is ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court. Learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on Sohail Alam Siddique versus The State and others, 2020 PCr.LJ 1445 [Lah ore], Anees Ahmad Khan versus The State, 2020 P.Cr.LJ 268 [Islamabad], Khurram Shahzad versus The State and another , 2020 P.Cr.LJ 392 [Islamabad], Anwar Masood Khan versus The State and others, 2018 P.Cr.LJ 469 [Lahore], Muhammad Shoaib versus The State and another , 2018 YLR Note 209 [Peshawar (Mingora Bench)], Muhammad Ibrahim versus The State through AAG and another , 2018 P.Cr.LJ Note 167 [Peshawar (Mingora Bench)], Muhammad Ishaq versus The State and another , 2018 YLR Note 140 [Peshawar], Muhammad Shabbir versus The State and others, 2020 YLR Note 22 [Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)], Jibran Rasheed versus Siraj Ul Haq, 2019 YLR 2891 [Peshawar], Abu Bakar versus The State and others, 2019 P Cr.LJ Note 20 [Islamabad], Kamran Mukhtiar Qureshi versus The State and another , 2018 YLR 65 [Peshawar (Abbotabad Bench)], Ahmar Altaf versus The State and another , 2020 YLR 2294 [Lahore], Khizar Hayat versus The State and others, 2021 MLD 1597 [Lahore], Nasir Iqbal versus The State through A.A.G.
Peshawar and another ,2018 YLR Note 202 [Peshawar (Mingora Bench)], Moiz Naseem versus The State, 2019 YLR Note 53 [Sindh], Adnan Shahzad versus The State and another , 2021 PCr.LJ 914 [Lahore], Sh.
Abdul Raheem versus The State and another , 2021 SCMR 822, Riaz Jafar Natiq versus Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others, 2011 SCMR 1708 , Muhammad Tanveer versus The State and another , PLD 2017 SC 733, Zafar Iqbal versus Muhammad Anwar and others, 2009 SCMR 1488 , Mian Manzoor Ahmad Watto versus The State, 2000 SCMR 107 , and Arshad Mehmood and another versus Sarfraz and others, 1996 SCMR 861 .
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant stated that the Sale Agreement produced by the Petitioner 's counsel has nothing to do with the registration of present FIR; that the loan and the sale agreement are separate and independent transactions; that issuance of cheque has not been denied by the Petitioner , therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail of the Petitioner .
5. Learned State Counsel submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the Petitioner with the commission of alleged of fence, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner has been accused of the offence under Section 489-F , which entails a maximum punishment of three years and as such does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. thereby making it a matter in which grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as per Tariq Bashir and Others Versus The State, PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 and Muhammad Tanvir Vs. State, PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733.
8. The record reflects that the Petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2021 as such he has already served more than five months in jail. Time and time again the apex Court has held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive as punishment begins after conviction not before. Therefore, if a person is wrongly released on bail then such wrong can be repaired by incarceration after conclusion of trial but incarceration during trial found wrongful upon conclusion of trial causes irreparable harm. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not appear that the Petitioner's incarceration would serve the cause of justice.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Petitioner has successfully made out a prima facie case for his release on bail. Consequently , the instant bail application is allowed and the Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) along with surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
10. All the observations made hereinab ove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the final determination of guilt or innocence by the learned trial Court.