1995 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail being accused in case F.I.R. No.19, dated 27-7-1992 under section 406/407/409/420/109/411, read with section 5 of Act II of 1947 registered with Police Station F.IA., Lahore.

2. According to F.I.R., petitioner Muhammad Anwer who is driver in WAPDA alongwith co-accused misappropriated official material worth Rs.5,15,460 and also prepared bogus goods receiving receipts.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after a period of two and a half years, the prosecution has failed to submit either complete or incomplete challan in the Court; the contents of the F.I.R. do not disclose the commission of offence under section 5 of Act II of 1947; nothing has been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation and physical remand and that co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Honourable Court. On the above premises, the petitioner seeks the concession of bail.

4. The petition was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State. He contended that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail and as such he is not entitled to the discretionary relief from this Court. He also argued that the petitioner is involved in case which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and as such grant of bail is not a rule to an exception.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police file.

6. A copy of the order, dated 6-2-1993 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.124/B of 1993 shows that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was granted after arrest interim bail but he absented himself on the date when the bail granted .to him was to be confirmed and as such the learned Judge did not confirm interim bail and dismissed his application. It was also observed that the accused is involved in case of embezzlement of public property worth lacks of rupees.

7. The interim bail of the petitioner was rejected on 6-2-1993 and the present petition was filed in this Court for pre-arrest bail on 17-1-1995 after a lapse of about 2 years. It is astonishing to note that the petitioner has alleged that a week ago he came to know about the dismissal of the bail application. The conduct of the petitioner by not appearing on the date fixed for hearing of the bail application when he was-admitted to interim bail amounts to misuse of concession of bail and as such I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of such an unscrupulous petitioner. The criteria of bail before arrest and after arrest has been clearly spelt out by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another PLD 1994 SC

133. Even otherwise there is no fresh ground available to the petitioner for his release on bail.

8. For all what has been discussed above, I am not persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The result is that this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-2111/L Bail refused.