2005 PLP 432 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Faakhar for Respondents (in Cr.M. No. 112‑CB of 2004). Zahoor Hussain, A.S.‑I./F.I.A. with record. This order shall dispose of Cr. Misc. No.111‑CB of 2004 and Cr. Misc. No.112‑CB of 2004 as they arise out of one and the same F. I. R.

2. The petitioner‑company has got a case registered against the respondents in both these petitions vide F.I.R. No.51 of 2002 dated 12‑6‑2002 under sections 420/468/471/409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Crime Circle, Multan.

3. Through Cr. Misc. No.111‑CB of 2004, the petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of pre‑arrest bail granted to Shaukat Maqbool respondent vide order dated 18‑3‑2004 by learned Special Judge (Central), Multan. Through Cr. Misc. No.112‑CB of 2004, the petitioner also seeks cancellation of post‑arrest bail granted to Abdul Rasheed Khan respondent vide order dated 18‑3‑2004 by learned Central Judge (Central), Multan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no mala fide or ulterior motives either for the complainant or for the Police to falsely implicate the respondent in Cr. M. No. 111‑CB of 2004. Further contends that a huge loss worth Rs. Forty two lacs has been caused to the petitioner‑company by misappropriating the Oil Tankers and as such, there was no occasion for the learned Special Judge (Central) to grant him the pre‑arrest bail in these circumstances especially' when the recovery is yet to be effected from the accused respondent.

5. As regards respondent Abdul Rasheed Khan in Cr. Misc. No. 112‑CB of 2004, the learned counsel argues that the respondent never denied that he has been employed for transportation of the Oil Tankers of the petitioner‑company as such he was also instrumental towards misappropriation of huge quantity of Oil. It is further contended that no case calling for further inquiry was made out entitling him to the grant of post‑arrest bail. His remaining in Jail only for a few days does not at all entitled him to the said concession.

6. Learned counsel representing Abdul Rashid Khan respondent has addressed arguments by supporting the bail granting order. The co- accused Shaukat Maqbool respondent in Cr. M. No. 111 ‑CB of 2004, has been served for today's date of hearing but he intentionally appears to have avoided appearance before this Court, therefore, I intended to dispose of his application on merits even in his absence.

7. I have examined the available records and have considered the arguments of respective parties.

8. As per F.I.R., one Irshad Hussain. Gillani was granted. Carriage Contract by PSO for transportation of Oil. After its revalidation, the transportation work was handed over to Shaukat Maqbool and Muhammad Usman which, of course, was a violation of the contract. Shaukat Maqbool accused‑respondent in Cr. M. No.111‑CB of 2004, went a step forward while further employing Abdul Rasheed Khan his co‑accused/respondent in Cr. Misc. No.112‑CB of 2004. After that, a huge loss of Oil worth Rupees forty two lacs alleged caused to the petitioner Co. was reported through the instant F.I.R. There is no element of mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the petitioner or the Police to falsely involve the respondent Shaukat or Rashid khan with the commission of such an offence. Moreover both the respondents have been named in the F.I.R. with a specific attributions. Recovery is yet to be made from the respondent Shaukat. In these circumstances, no case for grant of pre‑arrest bail was made out and as such, while allowing Cr. Misc. No. 111 ‑CB/04, the order dated 18‑3‑2004 granting pre‑arrest bail to, the respondent Shaukat is hereby recalled.

9. So far as Abdul Rasheed Khan respondent in Cr.M.No.112- CB/04 is concerned, he only remained in Jail for few days and no case for further inquiry was made out entitling him to the grant of post‑arrest bail. A perusal of the impugned order, reveals that the learned Judge has gone beyond his jurisdiction by discussing almost all the prosecution case which was not within his domain at least at the bail stage. For the present, the prosecution is possessed with sufficient material to prima facie connect the respondent Rasheed Khan with the commission of the alleged offence. At bail stage only tentative assessment of evidence is made and deeper merits cannot be discussed. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

10. For what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 18‑3‑2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Multan for confirmation of ad interim post‑arrest bail granted to Abdul Rashid respondent is also recalled and Crl. Misc. No.112‑CB of 2004 stands accepted. Both the respondents/accused shall be committed to jail after their arrest. H.B.T./P‑56/L Bails cancelled.