1976 PLP 125 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, J.‑The petitioner Zafar Iqbal and one Humayun Raza are accused in a case finder section 419,420, 467,468 and 471 read with section 34, P. P. C, registered under F. I. R. No. 492 of 1974 at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, on 8th March 1974. According to Ghulam Mustafa, Zonal Manager, Commerce Bank Limited, Lahore who lodged the report, Humayun Raza, the Manger of the Bank had misappropriated Rs. 5,000, from 24th ay 1973, tip 4th April 1974, in collaboration with Zafar Iqbal petitioner by giving advances to several fictitious firms, namely, Zafar Traders, Rafiq Shoe factory Ahsan Shoe Factory, Iqbal Traders and Zafar Iqbal Company. Petitioner's request for, grant of pre-arrest bail was rejected y the Lahore High Court, and a now prays for special leave to appeal. In support of the petition, Mr. D. M. Awan, Advocate submits that petitioner is a well known businessman of repute and he is engaged in extensive business activity including export trade. He is said to have done business to 'the tune of about Rs. 30,00,000 through the Commerce Bank Limited through the aforesaid firms. After the Bank was nationalised, the Bank officials called on him to repay the entire lean amount at once. However, on 29th June 1974 , in the words o petitioner, a compromise was arrived at and the Bank authorities obtained in writing from the petitioner wherein he was asked to, acknowledge the loans/advances taken by his business concern from time to time, and he was also asked to give a schedule of the repayment of the loans. A deed was typewritten in the Bank at the dictation of the Vice‑President, and the petitioner signed that. According to the arrangements, the petitioner was to replay the amount of Rs. 6,68,000 to the Bank, in instalments, which were to :tart by the second week of August 1974". Mr. D. M. Aware contends that since the loans were taken by petitioner in the name of the firms for genuine business activity, non-payment of instalments on time schedule would, at best, involve the petitioner in a civil liability but he has instead been dragged in a criminal case for the ulterior motive of putting undue pressure on him so as to compel him to repay the loan‑amounts immediately. On that date, we allowed petitioner's request for interim bail in these words:‑ "An official of the Crimes Branch who is conducting investigation in this case and a representative of the Commerce Bank Limited, Lahore (complainant) are present. The Bank representative admit that a written offer was made by the petitioner for repayment of the total sum of Rs. 6,68,000 which he had withdrawn from the Bank in twelve different accounts. According to the mode of payment, the petitioner was to furnish security of immovable property valued at Rs. Two lacs and pay the sum of Rs 6,68,000 in instalments by the end of December 1975. It is said that this arrangement was not accepted by the Bank because the petitioner owned no property in his name. The Investigating Officer requires the personal custody of the petitioner only to effect recovery of the amount taken as loan. The amount mentioned in the F. I. R. was withdrawn more than two years ago. It is therefore, not feasible that the same amount of money can be recovered in specie. Mr. D. M. Awan appearing on behalf of the petitioner undertakes that if his client is allowed interim bail he will furnish security of immovable property valued at Rs. two lacs for repayment of total amount due from him including Bank charges. Further he will pay Rs: twenty‑five thousand to the Bank by the 11th of November 1974, and pay another sum of Rs. thirty‑five thousand in the succeeding 3/4 weeks. It will serve the interest of the complainant bank that the petitioner be allowed interim bail subject to the condition that he arrange furnishing a security in the aforesaid amount and pay a sum of Rs. sixty thousand as indicated by his counsel. The Advocate General agrees to such an order being passed in this case." After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we converted this petition into appeal, and for the reasons mentioned in the previous order, we confirm the interim bail granted to petitioner with the direction that he shall make an equitable mortgage of an immovable property in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of the Commerce Bank Limited, Lahore within four weeks. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed,