Through the instant petition, the Petitioner (Muhammad Yasir Khan Durrani) is seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 19/21 dated 16.01.2021 registered for the offence under Section 489-F , PPC with Police Station Kohsar , Islamabad.
2. The facts as per contents of the FIR are that the Complainant [Zameer Hussain Abbasi] worked in an electronic supplier 's office, located at Office No.C-10, First Floor , Ittehad Center , Fazal-e-Haq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad.
Between 30.05.2020 and 08.06.2020, the Complainant sold to the Petitioner , who is the CEO of Expert Technology and Durrani and Sons Private Limited different items for the Rawalpindi Office i.e. Printer , Photo copies, Fridge, Freezers, AC, LED, Dispenser , Mobile, Tab, Office and Home Furniture, UPS, Fan, etc. and for the Peshawar Office and House AC, LED, Fan, Shelf Office Furniture, house hold Furniture total amounting to Rs.4,631,910/-.
Petitioner has different branches in different cities where he worked as general supplier . The Petitioner has supplied the above mentioned items to the Lahore and Peshawar . The Petitioner dishonestly issued a total of 10 cheques to the Complainant: (i) Cheque No.10334128 dated 06.07.2020 amounting to Rs.45000/-, (ii) Cheque No.10334129 dated 08.07.2020 amounting to Rs.114800/-, (iii) Cheque No.103341 12 dated 12.06.2020 amounting to Rs.33500/-, (iv) Cheque No.10343248 dated 20.06.2020 amounting to Rs.103 550/-, (v) Cheque No.10339762 dated 25.06.2020 amounting to Rs.62900/-, (vi) Cheque No.100604780 dated 11.07.2020 amounting to Rs.201210/-, (vii) Cheque No.10339764 dated 30.06.2020 amounting to Rs.102000/-, (viii) Cheque No.100604784 dated 17.07.2020 amounting to Rs.258800/-, (ix) Cheque No.100604787 dated 24.07.2020 amounting to Rs.613700/- and (x) Cheque No.10334131 dated 10.08.2020 amounting to Rs.531800, aggregating to Rs.2615700/-. The cheques were dishonored upon presentation, hence the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay of more than four months in registration of FIR, which makes the prosecution story doubtful; that the cheques were given due to a business deal as surety; that the Petitioner is innoc ent and has been falsely implicated in this case;; that the alleged offence does not comes under the prohibitory clause; that there is no apprehension, about the Petitioner , of avoiding the process of law, if released on bail by this Honourable Court; that due to the custody of Petitioner , his whole family is suffering as he is major contributor to earn bread and butter for his family; 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 there are no chances to tamper the evidence by the Petitioner or to abscond; and that the Petitioner is ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court. Learned counsel relied on Tariq Bashir Vs. The State, PLD 1995 SC 34, Kashif Khan Vs. The State, 2009 PCr.LJ 1418, Abu Bakar Vs. The State, 2019 PCr.LJ Note 20, Jibran Rasheed Vs. Siraj Ul haq, 2019 YLR 2891, Tahir Masood Butt Vs. The State, 2019 YLR 2125, Dr. Nasar Khan Vs. The State, 2013 PCr.LJ 1591, Malik Khizar Hayat Vs. The State, 2011 YLR 1777, Jehanzeb Khan Vs. The State, 2020 SCMR 1268, Kamran Mukhtar Qureshi Vs. The State, 2018 YLR 65, Sheikh Abdul Raheem Vs. The State, 2021 SCMR 822, Abdul Jabbar Vs. The State, 2021 YLR 367, Muhsin Islam Vs. The State, 2018 MLD 428, Shoukat Ali Vs. The State, 2009 PCr.LJ 19 and Faheemullah Vs. The State, 2018 MLD 273.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant stated that there is no delay in lodging of FIR as the Complainant was in touch with the Petitioner about the dishonoured cheques and the Petitioner kept making false promises that payment would be paid shortly , however , out of 26 cheques that were given by the Petitioner , 10 have already been dishonoured. Therefore, after losing all hope the Complainant filed the FIR. He further alleged that the Petitioner remained absconder for more than six months in this case; that there are five other FIRs against the Petitioner for the same offence; that therefore, there is strong apprehension that the Petitioner will abscond yet again if he is released on bail, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail of the Petitioner.
5. As far as the learned State counsel is concerned, he submitted that the Petitioner was already under arrest in Lahore for the of fence u/s 489-F , PPC in another case and was arrested in the present FIR on 07.08.2022.
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. 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.
9. With respect to the allegation that the Petitioner was absconder , it is noted that the record does not reflect any absconding on the part of the Petitioner . As far as pending FIRs are concerned, it is settled law that mere lodging of FIR is no ground to refuse bail whereas it is undisputed that there is no prior conviction.
10. Under the foregoing facts and circumstances of this case, when challan has not even been submitted yet it does not appear that the Petitioner's incarceration would serve the cause of justice.
11. 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. 200,000/- (rupees two lac) along with surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
12. All the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the final determination of guilt or innocence by the learned trial Court.