MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Zafar petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,1413 of 2011, dated 12-9-2011 registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad in respect of an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant after joining hands with the local police. Prior to registration of this F.I.R. Another criminal case vide F.I.R. No,325 of 2011, dated 19-4-2011 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad was registered against the petitioner on the statement of the brother of the present complainant and the facts of that F.I.R.

Are the same as that mentioned in the present F.I.R. And the petitioner has already allowed bail in that F.I.R. The petitioner is behind the bars since 23-5-2011. After the arrest of the petitioner the complainant party has taken forcible possession of whole property belonging to the petitioner.

During thorough investigation the investigating officer has come to the conclusion that the facts narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are found to be doubtful. Civil litigation for rendition of account is already pending between the parties and the suit was filed before registration of the F.I.R. Learned counsel relied upon 2009 PCr.LJ 1221 and 2009 SCM R 1488. In all the other cases registered against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. The complainants are the partners of the present complainant. The disputed cheque was stolen from the Office of the petitioner regarding which F.I.R. No, 761 of 2011, dated 4-7-2011 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad has been registered against partner of complainant, Haji Binyamin in which it is categorically mentioned that the complainant party has stolen cheque of the petitioner from his office. The investigation of the case is complete and challan has been submitted. The offence with which the petitioner is being charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And such like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. The case registered against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, therefore, he be released on bail.

3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of issuing cheque of a huge amount, i,e, Rs, 50,00,000 which was dishonoured on its presentation before the concerned bank. The petitioner is involved in so many cases of similar nature and in each case the complainant is different and the Police Stations are different. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2009 SCM R 174, 2009 SCM R 1488. It is also submitted that the challan has been submitted in the court and the petitioner is playing delaying tactics and not producing his counsel. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the occurrence, therefore, petition may be dismissed. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.

However, after going through the record submits that during the investigation the facts narrated in the F.I.R. Were found to be doubtful by the Investigating Officer.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. Be that as it may, no doubt the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But the facts remains that there is civil suit for rendition of account filed by the petitioner against the partners of complainant, in which the present Cheque No,0009829928 is the subject-matter, is pending even before registration of the F.I.R. During the investigation of this case the contents of F.I.R. Were found by the Investigating Officer to be doubtful and it is well recognized principle of criminal law that if doubt is created in a criminal case, the benefit of the same is to be given to the accused person even at bail stage. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 19-1-2012 and since then he is behind the bars. The petitioner is previous non-convict. Investigation of this case is completed and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the court, therefore, the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation. The offence with which the petitioner is being charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). This renowned judgment passed in supra case was also followed in a very recent judgment reported as Riaz Jafar Natiq v.

Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCM R 1708).

6. Apart from what has been discussed above it is settled proposition of law that section 489-F, P.P.C. Is not a mechanism for the recovery of amount. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Shafiq v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 869). Even otherwise the pressure of criminal law cannot be allowed to be utilized to put pressure for settling the civil dispute in a slipshod manner especially in the circumstances when the civil dispute between the parties was pending before setting the criminal machinery into motion.

7. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 500,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.