1997 PLP 3002 (MLD)

Raja Muhammad Bashir for Petitioner. Muhammad Bashir Kiani, Standing Counsel for the State (on. Court's call). A case under section 109/409/34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against M.B. Abbasi, the then President of National Bank of Pakistan and others at the report of Sai Muhammad, Vice President, Co‑ordination and Bussiness Development Wing, National Bank of Pakistan, R.H.Q.S., Islamabad, vide F.I.R. No. 1 of 1997 dated 21‑1‑1997 at the Police Station F.I.A./CBC, Karachi.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is an owner of a building in Islamabad which was hired by the National Bank of Pakistan at the exorbitant rent of Rs.5.04 million thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful, gain to the owners who were alleged to be the relatives of an ex‑M.N.A. of the defunct National Assembly.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought pre‑arrest bail on he ground that the demised property was situated in Islamabad; that the agreement had taken place at Islamabad; and that the payment was made at Islamabad, therefore, the registration of the case at Karachi was only on account of the mala fide of the F. I. A. As such, it was prayed that since the F. I. A. was in hot pursuit of the petitioner to arrest him in this case, therefore, he should be admitted to pre‑arrest bail so that he may approach the Court of competent jurisdiction at Karachi. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Amin. v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ. 661 (Karachi) and Ch. Allah Ditta. v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ. 2152).

4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the pre‑arrest bail on the ground that the authorities cited at the Bar are not applicable to the facts of the present case because the Courts at Karachi have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the case has been registered there. Even otherwise, on merits the petition was opposed on the ground that pre‑arrest bail is to be granted only in such cases where the police acted in a mala fide manner or wanted to procure the arrest with ulterior motive. In the instant case, the complainant was alleged to be a senior employee of the National Bank of Pakistan to which wrongful loss was allegedly caused. The offence being punishable uptil imprisonment for life, pre-?arrest bail should not be granted as a matter of course.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions from both the sides and find that huge loss of Rs.5.04 million is alleged to have been caused to the National Bank of Pakistan on account of some collusion between the petitioner and the then President of the Bank namely M.B. Abbasi. The case was registered on 21‑1‑1997, but strangely enough the petitioner has come up with this petition today i.e. 9‑5‑1997 after about four months of delay. Nobody from the Investigating Agency arrested him but suddenly he felt apprehension of his arrest at the hands of the F.I.A. Conversely, the inefficiency of the Investigating Agency is also manifest because though the case was registered four months ago, but its accused were yet at large. If the petitioner could not be arrested in four months, there seems to be no imminent danger of his arrest even now particularly when lethargy and in‑action is rampant among the Agencies for bringing the culprits to book in accordance with the law of the Land. Even otherwise, the case has been registered at Karachi and the Courts at Karachi would be the appropriate forum to move for the relief prayed in this petition. The objection raised by the learned counsel regarding the Courts at Karachi can be well‑settled if raised before those forums. At the moment, pre‑arrest bail is not to be granted indiscriminately or as a matter of routine until or unless there is some mala fide on the part of the police. In the instant case, the report was lodged by a senior official of the Bank who, of course, has apparently no mala fide intention to bring the culprits to book.

6. In view of the above situation, I do not find it a good case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑142/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.