2002 PLP 1040 (YLR)

Ch. Muhammad Sadaqat Ali for Petitioner. Mrs. Marina Chaudhary for the State. Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for the Complainant. Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks before arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.23 of 2002 dated 19‑1‑2002 registered at Police Station Faisal Town, Lahore on the complaint of Masood Akhtar Shahab under sections 420/468/406/471 and 467, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant claimed that he is resident of 83‑D Faisal Town and Liaqat Ali, petitioner was appointed as Manager in trading of poultary feed on monthly salary of Rs.25,

000. He was responsible for total business deal and was also operating bank account opened in Muslim Commercial Bank, and when he was asked for rendition of accounts he tried to put off the matter on one pretext or the other and he also tampered with business documents and had misappropriated the amount and also issued cheque on 29th July, 2000 amounting to Rs.10,00,000 which was bounced. It is further alleged that when he was asked about payment of the amount subsequently, he had threatened the complainant with dire consequence.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the case is totally, false and has been lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motive as the car of the petitioner was snatched by the complainant alongwith his co -accused. Hence the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court, which was disposed of by this Court directing S.P, Model Town, to hold inquiry. This order has been passed on 13th January, 2002. The, complainant was also one of respondents in that writ petition and when he carne to know about filing of writ petition, as a counter‑blast he got lodged this F.I.R. against the petitioner to pressurize him and to avoid the criminal proceedings of snatching of car of petitioner. It is further contended that a case under section 396, P.P.C. etc. has been registered against the complainant. The learned counsel further contends that the motive behind registering this case is to restrain the petitioner from pursuing that case. It is further contended that the petitioner was not servant of the complainant as has been stated in the F.I.R., but he was a partner of the firm alongwith other persons and partnership deed was executed on 8th February, 2000. The learned counsel has placed on record that partnership deed and the document was registered on 9th February, 2000 in the name of Adnan Traders. The learned counsel has also produced documents about the ownership of car, which was leased out by a leasing company in the name of petitioner and the firm has no concern with it. It is further contended that about 16 installments have been paid by the petitioner, but the complainant party wanted to grab the car of petitioner and has made a false statement through this F.I.R. It is further contended that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit for rendition of accounts. In such circumstances, the complainant has concealed the true facts and has got lodged false case against the petitioner by showing him as manager and a total false story has been introduced. It is further contended that the civil dispute has arisen between the partners, which has been converted into criminal offence by the complainant and the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if he is sent to jail as no offence at all has been committed by him. It is further contended that the investigation has already been completed and the petitioner has repeatedly joined the same, hence the sending of petitioner to Jail will serve no purpose and the petitioner may be allowed pre‑arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the same was lodged before registration of complaint of petitioner under section 395, P.P.C. which in fact is counter blast to this F.I.R. and the petitioner is guilty of the offences and he is not entitled to extra , ordinary relief by this Court, which is meant only to save innocent citizens. It is further contended that the petitioner has failed to make out a case entitling him to concession of extra‑ordinary relief. It is further contended that the petitioner had submitted forged document in Sessions Court, by producing arbitration deed which was signed by the arbitrator allegedly appointed on behalf of the complainant. It is further contended that a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner after registering a criminal case in order to take benefit of pendency of civil suit. It is further contended that the cheque was bounced, which was signed by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to, grant of bail

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has produced partnership deed dated 8th February, 2000 between him, Mahmood Ahmad complainant in case FIR. No.29 of 2000, dated 24‑1‑2002, Masood Akhtar Shehbaz, complainant in case F.I.R. No.23 of 2002, dated 19‑1‑2002 at Police Station Township and one Muhammad Shahid as fourth partner. This partnership deed has been signed by four persons and was registered with the Registrar of Firm, Lahore Division on 9th February, 2000 in the name of Adnan Traders and the given address was 83‑D, Faisal Town, Lahore. Though the complainant party had tried to deny these documents through some documents produced during the investigation and in this Court, yet all these documents produced by both the parties are sufficient to show that some business dispute is between the petitioner and complainant and they were running a business jointly in the firm and the, statement of the complainant that the petitioner was an employee and had been serving as manager in the firm seems to be incorrect and false. The only contention or the learned counsel for the complainant is that the petitioner was being paid Rs.25,000 monthly. This statement alone is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was an employee of the firm, but it shows that the petitioner was business partner. The documents produced boy the petitioner are sufficient to show that the car was obtained from leasing company in the name of Liaqat Ali, petitioner and not in the name of firm named above. The original documents have been produced, which have been returned to the petitioner and are sufficient to show that the car was, not leased out to the firm named above. In such circumstances, the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. of the complainant is not supported, by the documents on record and produced by the petitioner during arguments. Similarly possibility of registration of false case to settle civil dispute cannot be ruled out including false implication of the petitioner because the petitioner had moved an application for registration of the case against the complainant that his car had been snatched on 13‑1‑2002. He filed writ petition in this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to S.P. Model Town to get the matter inquired into and if the facts were found correct then to register the case. The alleged accused in the said writ petition has been made a partner Muhammad Masood Akhtar and the complainant of this case. They were summoned by the police during inquiry proceeding without registering case against them, they got registered two cases about the same firm against the petitioner on the same facts. In such circumstances it can easily be said that m31a fide on the part of complainant party cannot be ignored Nothing is to be recovered from petitioner and the investigation has already been completed by the S.P Model Town. No doubt the grant of pre‑arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief but at the same time it is an exhaustive remedy as the reputation and honour of the person, is involved. Hence the prayer for bail before arrest is liable to be considered with due care and caution and if the petitioner succeeds in making out a case before arrest by showing that his involvement can be due to mala fide and nothing is to be recovered from him, in such circumstances the bail before arrest should be granted to the accused person as if he is arrested, he will suffer irreparable loss, which will never be recoverable even by his acquittal at later stage, The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for bail before arrest. He is already on interim bail. His bail is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./L‑39/L Interim bail confirmed.