2010 PLP 3177 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition Inam-ud-Din petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.200 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 23-12-2009 in respect of offences under sections 409/420/468/471/109/166, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was Building Inspector and the allegation against him is that four commercial buildings had been constructed in his area during his posting, in violation of the site-plan. Building No.104 in Gulberg-III, Lahore the petitioner had issued notice under section 40(a) on 6-8-2002 according to the Rules and Regulation of LDA to the owner of the building. He had also issued notice under section 40(b) according to Rules and Regulations of LDA. The petitioner had also issued order, dated 12-8-2002 for demolition of the building. The matter was also pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The owner had obtained stay order dated 19-8-2002 which is existed till now. As regards Building No.114-Gulberg-III, Lahore, the same procedure had been adopted by the petitioner and notice under section 40(a) had been issued to the owner on 3-1-2004. The owner had obtained stay order on 6-1-2004 from civil court. The petitioner had also issued order for demolition of that building. As regards Building No.37, Gulberg-III, Lahore the petitioner had found the construction at the site as illegal and adopted same procedure for demolition of building. The only building left in field is Building No.31, Gulberg-III, Lahore, the learned counsel contends that completion certificate with regard to the above said building had been issued before posting of the petitioner and, thus, he had no concern whatsoever with the above said building. In such circumstances the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail because all the documents supported the version of the petitioner and establishes his innocence. The petitioner had taken all the necessary actions in time and there was negligence on the part of the petitioner.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General contends that the construction was raised over Building No.114, Block-H, Khan Arcade from 1-1-2004 to 6-9-2004 which building was belonged to Mst. Javed Begum and the petitioner remained posted at that building from 1-1-2004 to 12-7-2004. Building No.104, Gulberg-III, Elite Hotel was belonging to Ahmad Zia-ur-Rehman and two and three floors had illegally been constructed over that building. Construction had been continued from 6-8-2002 to 16-10-2002 and the petitioner remained posted from 22-8-2002 to 22-5-2004. The third Building No.31, Commercial Zone, Gulberg-III, Lahore was belonging to Ch. Muhammad Nazir who had illegally constructed 8th and 9th floor over that building and construction was started from 17-4-2003. The petitioner remained posted from 22-8-2002 to 22-5-2004. The last Building No.37-J, Gulberg-III, Khan Arcade was belonging to Messrs Iftikhar -ud-Din and Moeen-ud-Din and this whole building was constructed illegally. The period of construction was from 26-4-2003 to 30-1-2006 and the petitioner remained posted there from 8-4-2003 to 25-5-2004 according to the noting sheet. In these circumstances the petitioner remained posted during constructions of building and he was fully involved in illegal construction which was made contrary to site-plan. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General goes on to state that Mian Abdul Qayyum, Director Town Planning has made statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police fully implicating the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length and going through the record of this case I have noticed that the petitioner had remained posted from 8-4-2003 to 25-5-2004 at Building No.37-J, Gulberg-III, Khan Arcade whereas the construction had been made during the period from 26-4-2003 to 30-1-2006, thus, the illegal construction had b9en raised during his tenure of service. As far as Building No.114, Block-H, Khan Arcade is concerned the period of construction was 1-1-2004 to 6-9-2004 and the petitioner remained posted there at from 1-1-2004 to 12-7-2004. So far as Building No.104 is concerned it was constructed during the period from 6-8-2002 to 16-10-2002 and the petitioner remained posted there at from 22-8-2002 to 22-5-2004 and second and third floors were constructed over that building. Building No.31, Commercial Zone, Gulberg-III, Lahore was constructed from 17-4-2003 to onward and the petitioner remained posted thereat from 22-8-2002 to 22-5-2004 and he had never raised any objection. It has also been came into the notice of this Court that one Shaukat Jamal. Building Inspector with the same set of allegations had moved bail before arrest but the same had not only dismissed by this Court but also dismissed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan on 11-3-2010. The case of the petitioner is not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case of above said accused. During the investigation of this case Mian Abdul Qayyum associated himself with the investigation and has made statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he has specifically incriminated the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences. Even otherwise the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner during the investigation of this case which prima facie connect him with the commission of alleged offences. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary concession which is always extended in favour of the person who has been involved in false criminal cases with the connivance of complainant. No ill-will or bitterness between the complainant and the petitioner has been brought on the record of this case so as to establish false implication of later by the former.

5. For what has been discussed above reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 12-5-2010 is hereby withdrawn and recalled. N.H.Q./I-28/L Pre-arrest bail refused.