2003 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Arif Alvi for Petitioner. Ch. Faqir Muhammad for the Complainant. Tanvir Haider Buzdar for the State. Munawar Hussain Shah, petitioner, has sought confirmation of his ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order, dated 2-7-2002, by this Court.

2. The brief facts as given in the F.I.R. are that Ranjha and Abdul Majeed Sial alongwith Munawar Hussain Shah (petitioner) brought a tractor at the show-room of the complainant and sold the same, for a consideration of Rs.1,90,

000. Registration Book, open transfer letter and sale receipt executed by Ranjha was given to the complainant. After one month, the accused got the show-room of the complainant raided and the tractor was taken away from the complainant on the pretext that Ranjha accused had got a case registered vide F.I.R. No.286 of 2000 at Police Station Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh, to the effect that the aforementioned tractor was being kept by him on Superdari and the same was not in legal possession of Abdul Majeed. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that Ranjha and his co-accused obtained Rs.1,90,000 from the complainant through deceitful means with their common intention and conspiracy. Hence committed a cognizable offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he signed as witness on the receipt of sale executed by Ranjha, that there is no allegation that the tractor was taken away by the petitioner or was in his possession; and that the principal accused in the case Ranjha has been admitted to bail.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State have argued that there is a mark difference between the consideration for grant of post-arrest bail named in the F.I.R.; that he remained absconder and the proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. were initiated against him; that at the time of announcement of order he escaped from the Court to avoid his arrest and that an absconder loses his right of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than 8-1/2 months. Ranjha co-accused, who had posed himself as owner in possession of the disputed tractor, received Rs.1,90,000 from the complainant and had also executed a receipt, has been granted post-arrest bail. The significant factor vis-a-vis the order of grant of bail to Ranjha accused is that the complainant and the learned D.D.A. did not oppose the grant of bail to Ranjha accused. The case of the petitioner is at much lesser footing as compared to that of Ranjha. Section 420, P.P.C. is bailable while the other offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No useful purpose would be served if the petitioner is sent to jail, who is likely to be granted bail after a few days on the principle of consistency, as Ranjha co-accused has already been granted bail and Abdul Majeed co-accused stands acquitted. It was held in the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380 by, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that "prima facie at this stage, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed. No useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail".

6. For what has been discussed above, I confirm the ad interim pre -arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 2-7-2002, subject to his tendering fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-1567/L Interim pre-arrest bail confirmed.