2017 PLP 142 (YLRN)

ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.

Muhammad Zulkaif petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.639/2015 dated 19.10.2015 registered under sections 420/468/471 P.P.C. Police Station Ghala Mandi, Sahiwal.

2. The allegation against the petitioner/accused, as per FIR, is that he along with his co-accused by receiving amount and in response of amount issuing forged receipts/documents. The act of the petitioner shows that he not only committed fraud with the complainant party but also misappropriated the amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motives and mala fide intentions. He further argued that petitioner was involved in this case being a brother of Niaz Ahmed accused, who was serving Manager in Shujjah Town, Sahiwal. He added that there is no direct or indirect evidence of forgery/fraud against the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that there is unexplained delay of seven and half years in lodging the FIR, which speaks volume of mala fide on the part of the complainant. He also argued that as per contents of FIR, offence under section 468 is not made out while sections 420/471, P.P.C. are bailable. He further contended that actual facts behind the concocted story of FIR is that there was joint business between the parties and brother of the petitioner namely Niaz Ahmed paid huge amount but the respondent No.2 in connivance with owners of town registered false case against the petitioner. Lastly, he prayed for the acceptance of this bail petition. Reliance was placed on 2010 SCMR 1816, PLD 2014 SC 693 and 2004 SCMR 1185.

4. Heard, record perused.

5. On the other hand, learned DPG with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence on the ground that petitioner has specifically been nominated in this case. He along with his brother Niaz Ahmed by preparing forged documents grabbed land of innocent persons. Petitioner and his brother are involved in so many cases such like nature. They further argued that petitioner has not joined investigation with local police and he is misusing pre-arrest bail application granted by this Court. In the end, they prayed for dismissal of this petition. He made reliance on 2007 YLR 985 and 2012 PCr.LJ 1350.

6. Arguments heard, record perused.

7. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR. Real brother of the petitioner Niaz Ahmed, who along with the petitioner fraudulently collected huge amount from innocent persons in the shape of plots of society. On the other hand, the owner of the property Sardar Zahid Shuja also registered the case against the petitioner and his brother Niaz Ahmed bearing FIR Nos.280/2015 and 353/15 with allegation that they both by issuing forged documents cheated innocent persons and grabbed their huge amount. Further, ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2014 but till today he did not join investigation. When petitioner is not ready to join investigation then it is not justified to extend him an extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Record does not reflect any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police. Para-meters for grant of pre-arrest bail are entire different from that of the post-arrest bail. In the case of Muhammad Azam v. The State (1996 SCMR 71) it has been laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan that the right of pre-arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fide/enmity or where no offence is shown to have been committed on the bare reading of FIR. As such, no case for this extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail is made out. The pre-arrest. bail is an extra ordinary concession which cannot be granted at this stage, when sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime is available on record.

8. For the reasons mentioned supra, the bail petition it hand is hereby dismissed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted vide order dated 21.12.2015 recalled.

9. The observations referred above are only of tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial of the case. WA/M-109/L Petition dismissed.