1999 PLP 1833 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Siddique Virk for the Complainant Muhammad Ilyas Malik for the State. The petitioner Muhammad Aslam alongwith Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Amin, Abdul Ghafoor, Qamar-ud-Din, Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Yousaf, Munir Ahmad Chaudhry and Malik Sarfraz Hussain stand charged under sections 467, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 vide F.I.R. No.92 of 1995 dated 26-7-1995 registered at Police Station A.C.E, Multan Region, Multan.

2. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he being a stamp vendor fraudulently and with the connivance of the other persons got registered General Power of Attorney in his favour alleged to have been executed by one Muhammad Aslam son of Shamas Din.

3. The present petitioner as well as his co-accused moved pre-arrest petition which was decided by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, Camp at Rahimyar Khan vide order dated 18-2-1997 whereby he confirmed pre-arrest bail granted to Malik Sarfraz Hussain, 'Muhammad Asghar and Qamar-ud-Din, but declined the said relief in respect of present petitioner as well as Munir Ahmad, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Yousaf and Abdul Aziz.

4. The petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said order and has approached this Court for the same relief.

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay of about 1-1/2 year in lodging the F.I.R., as alleged occurrence took place somewhere in 1994 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 26-7-1995, that all co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail and case of the petitioner is at par with them that the petitioner has not obtained any benefit on the basis of alleged general power of attorney, that none of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause, that he has also not misused the concession of interim bail and finally challan has been submitted in the Court, as such the detention of the petitioner in jail will not serve any purpose. He, thus, submits that the interim bail already granted to the petitioner may be confirmed.

6. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State. His first objection is that petitioner is not entitled the relief of bail before arrest due to his own conduct, as he slipped away from the Court when the order dated 18-2-1997 was announced, and in this respect has referred to the observation of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption incorporated in the order itself. He contends that in order to seek the relief of bail it was incumbent upon the petitioner to surrender himself physically in the Court, but as he failed to comply with the said mandatory provisions of section 498, Cr.P.C. so he is not entitled to the said relief. In support of his contention he has relied upon Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1974 Lahore 256) and Abdul Hakeem v. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J 917).

7. So far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, he submitted that initially' application was made upon which an inquiry was conducted and it was as a result of that inquiry that order for the registration of this case was passed. As such the delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands explained properly.

8. He further contends that so far as co-accused of the petitioner are concerned, those who were declined the relief of pre-arrest bail were taken into custody and have subsequently been released on bail, that as such case of petitioner is not at par with them, that petitioner being the main accused is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.

9. A perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. which have been fully discussed and thrashed in the order dated 18-2-1997 clearly reveal that the trial Court while passing the said order has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter in issue in respect of the petitioner as well as his co-accused. The part assigned to the present petitioner has been highlighted in the order dated 18-2-1997 whereby the petitioner was declined the relief of bail before arrest alongwith others. The petitioner has been found, prima facie, connected with the commission of offence charged against him. In view of the facts narrated above, he is not entitled to the relief sought by him. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-781/L Pre-arrest bail refused.