2011 MLD 459 (PLP)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Sajjad Azmat Chahal through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.338 registered under section 406, P.P.C. with Police Station Qilla Deedar Singh, District Gujranwala on 18-8-2010.

2. The facts of the case stood recorded in this Court's order dated 27-9-2010, on his pre arrest bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.10326/B/2009. I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars since 27-9-2010. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not attract the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is well settled principle in criminal administration of justice that mere involvement of huge amount or heinousness of offence itself is no ground to decline the relief of bail to an accused, where it's extension, may be otherwise, justified. It is also relevant to mention here that considerations for deciding the question of pre-arrest bail are different than the one for post arrest bail.

3. Besides than this, it has been found from the copies of the documents annexed to the instant petition that both the petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant have gone to the Civil Court with their respective claims/suits in respect of the dispute involved in the instant case. It has also been found that on 12-5-2010, the complainant has brought an application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. for registration of case against the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The report was called for on the same from the Police. Muhammad Asif, A.S.-I. of the said Police Station compiled report and it was forwarded by the S.H.O. to the Court concerned. The Police therein has taken the stance that there had been civil suits pending between the parties in respect of the money transaction and the partition of the property and so, the matter is of civil nature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala thereon has recorded his following observations: "Report has been submitted by the police, which shows that respondent Sajjad Azmat has already filed a civil suit before the learned civil court, Gujranwala in connection with matter in controversy between the parties and he can seek his remedy from that very forum. Application is devoid of any force. Hence the same stands disposed of accordingly." It has also been found that the petitioner has brought declaratory suit along with permanent and directory injunction against the complainant regarding the similar matter as involved in the instant case. I have gone through his such plaint. The same is based upon almost the similar facts as arc contained in the instant F.I.R. It was on 4-5-2010. He has brought another suit for permanent and directory injunction against the complainant containing almost the similar facts therein. It was on 8-5-2010.

5. The complainant has brought declaratory suit along with permanent and directory injunction against him (petitioner) almost on same facts as are contained in the instant case. It was on 31-7-2010. He has brought another suit against him on similar facts on 12-8-2010. These, thus, were prior to the present case.

6. It is everybody's case before me that all these suits between the parties are pending before the competent Civil Court. So, it is very much certain that any verdict regarding the correctness or validity of the plea of the parties therein is to be returned therefrom and till such time the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so, the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. It may also be mentioned here that it is not the object of law to withhold bail to an accused as punishment in advance.

8. He is stated to be previous non-convict, which has not- been controverted by the other side.

9. In these -circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that case for grant of post arrest bail to him has been made out.

10. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

11. However, it is clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial. H.B.T./S-6/L Bail granted.