2018 PLP 1582 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The respondent was booked for the offences under sections 421/468/420, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 67/2017 registered at Police Station Jutial Gilgit on 13.06.2017.

2. The respondent applied for bail before arrest in the Court of vacation Judge Gilgit, which was allowed to him vide order dated 23.01.2018. Paras 7, 8 and 9 of the order of the learned vacations Sessions Judge are reproduced for ready reference:-- 7. "It is apparent from record that petitioner/accused is agent of Capital Marketing Services Islamabad and not the owner/ proprietor of Capital Marketing Services Islamabad. Although agent acts on behalf of principal but in no way he can be equated with principle/owner of company or firm. For the sake of arguments if we presumed that Property Certificate presented by the petitioner/accused is fake even then the owner of said Company or Firm is responsible for such act and not the person who acts as an agent.

8. Further that at this stage record does not connect the petitioner/accused as main accused or maker of such alleged fake documents. Primarily the owner of said Company or Firm is responsible. In addition to above the verification letter of A.C. Gilgit has been issued on 17th June 2017 which is Saturday and on Saturday offices closed being holiday. Such facts also raised question about verification letter.

9. In view of above stated facts the petition is granted and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner/accused on 29.6.2017 by Honorable Sessions Judge Gilgit is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of this Court. Petitioner/accused is directed to join investigation cooperate with I.O. File after due completion be consigned to record."

3. Complainant/ State being aggrieved from the above judgment/ order has filed the instant bail cancellation application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the respondent is an authorized agent of Capital Marketing Company Islamabad, who on behalf of the above Company applied for registration/bidding of the Company with Food Department G.B. for transportation of the wheat from PASCO Centers in Punjab to Food Godown Islamabad and from Food godown Islamabad to all over Gilgit-Baltistan for the year 2017/2018. The wheat consignment papers were also signed by the respondent. The respondent submitted property documents issued by the office of Assistant Commissioner Gilgit vide office letter No. SKD-6(10)- 27/3839/2016 dated 31.05.2017, which on verification were found forged, hence the FIR was lodged. The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that submission of forged/fabricated documents is a heinous offence and the learned vacation Judge, without realizing the gravity/intensity of the offence allowed pre-arrest bail to the respondent, which order is not only perverse, arbitrary but also against the settled principles of law and principles governing grant/refusal of bail before arrest. The learned Assistant Advocate General requested to withdraw the bail facility granted to the accused/respondent without any legal justification.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent defended the judgment and submitted that the property was existing in Islamabad and Assistant Commissioner Gilgit was not even otherwise competent to verify the above property. Per learned counsel the FIR has been lodged just to harass the respondent and keep him and his company away from the bidding process. The verification letter was issued on 17.06.2017, which was Saturday and a close holiday, hence it also creates doubts about the letter of verification issued by the office of Assistant Commissioner, further that none from the office of Assistant Commissioner has been booked in the FIR, thus the case of the respondent is also as one of the pre-arrest bail, which has rightly been granted to the respondent.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the entire record of the case with their valuable assistance.

7. Provisions of bail before arrest could only be invoked, when an accused seeking concession of pre-arrest bail satisfies the Court that some unfounded and unsubstantiated charges have been brought against him by some motivated ill wishers with mala fide intentions. The FIR of the instant case has been lodged by one Muhammad Khurshid Alam, Deputy Director Civil Supply, who is a responsible Government official and has no personal grudges against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case in hand. The involvement of the accused in submission of forged documents has not been denied even by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned vacation Judge allowed bail before arrest without realizing the facts that bail before arrest is only granted, when the registration of case was based on enmity, appearant malafidies, or where no offence was either shown to have been committed or where from bare reading of FIR, no offence was made out. The above ingredients were completely lacking in the case of respondent. The learned Judge failed to exercise his discretion in a judicious manner.

8. As a sequel of above discussions Cr. Misc. No. 30/2018 filed by the complainant/State is allowed and the judgment/order passed by the learned vacation Judge Gilgit dated 23.01.2018 is recalled. Needless to say that my above observations are only tentative in nature and will not be used by either party during any proceedings of the case.

9. Cr. Misc. No. 30/2018 is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. MQ/158/GB Petition allowed.