AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. Through this bail application, applicant Roshan Ali son of Muhammad Mithal assailed the bail order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Malir) in case FIR No.70 of 2022 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station SSHIA, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the except the aforesaid FIR, complainant has already registered two other FIRs bearing No.347 of 2021 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Sachal and FIR No.377 of 2021 under sections 420, 34, P.P.C. read with section 25 of the Telegraph Act at Police Station SSHIA for same allegations in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail, copies of such bail orders are also available on record. He further contended that there is delay of four months in lodging instant FIR for which no cogent and plausible reason or explanation has been given by the prosecution. He also contended that though the instant FIR is under section 489-F, P.P.C. in respect of dishonouring a cheque, however the date, time and mode of payment is totally missing to establish the right of obligation against the applicant hence the whole story narrated in the FIR seems to be doubtful and makes a good case of further inquiry. He lastly submitted that prayed that considering the above facts, the applicant is entitled for concession of bail.
3. Learned Counsel Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant controverted the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the cheques were given by the applicant dishonestly to the complainant to satisfy the amount owed by him, one of which cheque was bounced hence the instant case was registered. They contended that as far as the other FIRs against the applicant are concerned, since the applicant had took law in his hand which called for registration of the FIR which were accordingly registered and this case has nothing to do with those FIRs as each and every case has its own facts and merits. They submitted that it is now become practice in the society that people used to issue cheques for satisfaction of amount and later take other pleas and claims that it was not for the satisfaction of debt. They next contended that prima facie the applicant has issued the cheque dishonestly which lead registration of instant case therefore submitted that the instant bail application merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the record.
5. Minute perusal of the record reveals that three separate FIRs were lodged against the applicant by the complainant for the same offences viz FIR bearing No.347 of 2021 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Sachal, FIR No.377 of 2021 under sections 420, 34, P.P.C. read with section 25 of the Telegraph Act at Police Station SSHIA and FIR No.550 of 2021 registered at Police Station Sachal under sections 420, 468, 471, 170, 34, P.P.C. wherein the applicant was already enlarged on bail.
Certified true copies of bait orders in all the aforesaid FIRs have also been placed on record.
Registration of multiple FIRs against the applicant under same sections goes to make case doubtful against applicant benefit of which shall go to the applicant. In the case reported as Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/ probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to, keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial.
Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused".
6. It may not be out of place to mention here that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it may be required to ensure the presence of accused during trial. The punishment begins after conviction and not before it, as in criminal justice system every man is deemed to be innocent until duly found guilty. It needs not to re-emphasize that the purpose of putting the un-convicted persons, in custody is nothing but to secure their attendance at the trial. Even otherwise, life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585.
7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, hence, case of the applicant prima facie calls for further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the satisfaction of trial Court. The instant Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of in the above terms.