2007 P Cr (PLP)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Ibrahim Ghulam Mustafa son of Ghulam Mustafa, the petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.92 of 2007, dated 7-2-2007, registered with Police Station Factory Area Lahore for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Khalid Rasool son of Ghulam Rasool, the complainant, was that 'he was dealing in sale and purchase of cars; that the landlord of his workshop namely Muhammad Ibrahim son of Ghulam Mustafa (petitioner) is his close friend and acquaintance; that the petitioner was in dire need of Rupees 19 lac for a period of two months; he (complainant) trusting his friend paid him Rs.19 lac in the presence of Muhammad Ali son of Allah Rakha and Ali Akbar son of Iyaz Khan Muhammad Ibrahim (petitioner) promised to return the amount two months; on the appointed date he delivered a Cheque bearing No.50325061 dated 10-11-2006 drawn on Bank of Punjab Walton Road Branch, Lahore for Rs:19,00,000; on 14-11-2006 the cheque was. dishonoured by the bank for lack of fund; on further contact, the petitioner got infuriated and extended threats of serious consequences. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. The petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 18-6-2007. Hence this petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Additional Prosecutor-General for the State and have perused the record.

5. It was argued by Ch. Abdul Waheed and Mr. Ishfaq Qayyum Cheema, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an unexplained delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is innocent and a-law-abiding person and has. been falsely implicated in this case; that in fact the mother of the petitioner had entered into an agreement for the sale of a 10 Marla plot of land belonging to her at Bank Stop Main Walton Road, Lahore, where the complainant was carrying on his business as a tenant and having come to know about the agreement to sell and the size of the consideration involved i.e. Rs.20 million, he (complainant) and one Major (retired) Muhammad Afzal tried to usurp the property by manufacturing fictitious documents; that in fact the cheque book out of which a leaf has been used by the petitioner had been snatched from the petitioner on 12-8-2006; and that the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque had -been forged.

6. On the other hand Mr. Haider Rasul Mirza, the learned counsel .for the complainant vigorously opposed the petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail. He submitted that according to the report of the Handwriting Expert the signatures on the disputed cheque have been found to be that of the petitioner; that story of snatching the cheque book has been coined by the petitioner merely with a view to wriggling out of his financial liability; that the petitioner had got nothing to do with Major (Recd.) Muhammad Afzal or with a civil suit allegedly filed by the said Major Muhammad Afzal; while placing reliance on Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192, he concluded that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the complainant did harbour some malice against the petitioner, he is also bound to show malice on the part of the police.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record I notice that at present there is ample incriminatory material available against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner a deeper appreciation of the material available on record is required, which exercise, I am afraid, cannot be undertaken by this Court at this stage. I tend to agree with Mr. Haider Rasul Mirza, the learned counsel for the complainant that one of the basic ingredients for the grant of pre-arrest bail i.e. malice on the part of the complainant or the police is not forthcoming in the material available on record. Considerations for the grant of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely different. Grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in the given backdrop of the case at this stage would amount to stifling the case of the prosecution which is neither proper nor desirable. The F.I.R. had been lodged on 7-2-2007 more than five months have elapsed and the petitioner has been able to successfully elude the process of law. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order dated 22-6-2007 is hereby recalled. H.B.T./I-41/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.