2013 P Cr (PLP)
ATIQ NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATIQ NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 P Cr (PLP) (ATIQ NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aasim Hafeez for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.123-B of 2012).
- Iqbal Khurshed Mughal for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.964-B of 2012).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of
Allegation against the accused (chief executive of the company) and co-accused (supervisor of the company) was that they had removed goods from the godown of the company
Contentions of the accused were that present case had been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that goods in question were removed by the directors of the company with the inclusion of the security guard; that it was not possible that such huge quantity of goods could be removed without the knowledge of the directors of the company; that accused was a previous non-convict; that accused had informed the bank regarding the removal of the goods but the bank authorities stopped him from registering a case, and that provisions of S.406, P.P.C. were not made out against the accused as the goods in question were not entrusted to him
Contentions of the co-accused were the same as that of the accused but he additionally contended that he being a supervisor only visited the godown after every fifteen (15) days to check whether the security guard was present on his duty or not, and that the directors of the company and bank authorities had joined hands with each other and removed the goods from the godown
Accused and co-accused were named in the F.I.R.
According to the agreement between the bank and the company, it was the responsibility of the accused and the co-accused to take care of the goods in question which were entrusted to them
Goods in question were under the custody of the accused and co-accused, when they were removed from the godown
Investigation officer found the accused and co-accused to be fully involved in the case and recovery was yet to be effected from both of them
Prima facie, the accused and co-accused were connected with the commission of the offence and were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail which was meant only to save innocent persons from undue harassment, humiliation and disgrace, while the accused and co-accused failed to fulfil such criteria for the relief of pre-arrest bail
Complainant of the case was a bank manager, who had no personal vendetta or grudge against the accused and co-accused to falsely implicate them in the case
Bail petitions of accused and co-accused were dismissed and ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to them was recalled.
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406
Grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused when recovery was to be effected from him
Effect
When recovery was to be effected, grant of pre-arrest bail meant that accused was exempted from joining the investigation because of which the prosecution case might suffer for want of recovery of incriminating articles and other material, which might be necessary to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged crime.
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406
Pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of the case was based on enmity, mala fide or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of the record.
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406
Previous non-conviction of the accused
Scope
Previous non-conviction was not a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.123-B of 2012 titled Atiq Niazi v. The State and another and Criminal Miscellaneous No.964-B of 2012 titled Ijaz Ahmad v. The State and another as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same F.I.R.
2. The petitioners have sought bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.459 of 2011 dated 27-5-2011, registered under section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station City Jaranwala District Faisalabad. Their applications for bail before arrest were turned down by the Judge Special Court (Offences in Bank), Lahore vide order dated 3-1-2012. Hence, these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for Atiq Niazi submits that petitioner is innocent, he has not committed the offence and the instant case has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. He is Chief Executive of Messrs Anchorage (Pvt.) Limited. The goods were removed by the Directors of the Mills from the Crescent Jute Product Limited inclusion with Ghulam Shabbir Security Guard, deputed on the godown of Crescent Jute Products Limited. He submits that it is not possible that such a huge quantity of goods can be removed without knowledge of the Directors of the Mills. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is previous non-convict and is a respectable and law-abiding citizen of this country, if arrested he will be humiliated in the eyes of general public. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has informed the concerned Bank Authorities regarding the removal of goods but he was stopped from getting registered a case by the Bank Authorities. According to learned counsel provisions of section 406, P.P.C. are not made out against Atiq Niazi-petitioner because the goods were not entrusted to him. He has relied on Muhammad Rizwan v. The State (2008 YLR 2169), Shakir Hussain v. The State (PLD 1956 Supreme Court (Pak) 417) and prayed that ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for Ijaz Ahmad has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Atiq Niazi. However, he further submits that the petitioner is Supervisor of the Company, he used to visit godown after 15 days only to check whether security guard Ghulam Shabbir is present on the duty or not. Learned counsel submits that the Bank Authorities and the Directors of the Mills have joined hands with each other and they have removed the alleged goods from the godown and the petitioner has been made escape goat in the case and that in the afore-referred circumstances, it is a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Ijaz Ahmad as he is not connected with the alleged commission of crime.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed these petitions and has contended that version of the petitioners is self-contradictory. According to agreement dated 18-3-2010 arrived at between the Company of the petitioner No.1 and the Bank Authorities, the godown were under the control of the petitioners and without their involvement the goods cannot be removed from the godown. It has been further contended that bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which could not be extended to the petitioners who have deprived the complainant from a huge quantity of goods amounting to Rs.12,70,00,
000. As the recovery had yet to be effected, therefore, ad interim bail granted to the petitioners be recalled.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Record reveals that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. According to the agreement between the complainant bank and Anchorage Pvt. Limited, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to take care of the goods entrusted to them being C.O. and employee of Anchorage Pvt. Limited. It is an admitted fact that when the goods were removed from the godown, the same were under custody of the petitioners. Misappropriation of huge quantity of goods amounting to Rs.12,71,00,000 are involved in this case. The petitioners were found fully involved by the Investigating Officer. Recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioners. We are fortified with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 133) wherein it was held as under:-- "that when recovery is to be effected, grant of pre-arrest bail means that accused is exempted from joining the investigation and by not joining the investigation, prosecution case may suffer for want of recovery of incriminating articles and other material, which may be necessary to connect the accused with the commission of alleged crime".
8. It is well settled that pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was based on enmity, mala fide or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of record. In this behalf reliance is placed on Muhammad Arshad and another v. The State and another (1996 SCMR 74).
9. From the tentative assessment of the record, this court is of prima facie view that the petitioners are connected with the alleged commission of the offence who are not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail which is meant only to save innocent persons from undue harassment, humiliation and disgrace while the present petitioners have failed to fulfil the above ingredients for the grant of such a relief. The complainant was a Bank Manager, who had no personal vendetta or grudge to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case. Even otherwise, considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are altogether different and it is not a case of bail after arrest. Similarly previous non-conviction is also not a ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Needless to observe that deeper appreciation of evidence at this stage is not warranted by law.
10. Resultantly, both the petitions being without merit are hereby dismissed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to Atiq Niazi petitioner vide order dated 5-1-2012 and Ijaz Ahmad petitioner vide order dated 25-1-2012 are recalled. The findings recorded are tentative in nature and are only for disposal of these pre-arrest bail petitions. MWA/A-91/L Bail recalled.