----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468 & 471--Bail, refusal of--Bogus degree of LL.B.--Obtained license for practicing as an Advocate-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 589

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468 & 471--Bail, refusal of--Bogus degree of LL.B.--Obtained license for practicing as an Advocate--Not mere cheating with license issuing authority but also with public-at-large and actual advocates--Absconded--Fugitive from law--He remained absconder for a period of about three years, therefore, his case falls in exception to rule of grant of bail in cases not falling within ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C.--No case for grant of post-arrest bail has been made out--Petition is without merit and dismissed.

                                                                           [Pp. 590 & 591] A & B

Mian Muhammad Bashir Saif, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for State.

Mr. Imran Javed Ranjha, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No. 2/Complainant of case.

Date of hearing: 2.2.2022.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 589
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ MALIK--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 80494-B of 2021, decided on 2.2.2022.

Order

Through instant petition, Muhammad Imtiaz Malik (petitioner/accused) has sought post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 738/2018 dated 26.9.2018 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, PPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Lahore.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that petitioner is specifically nominated in the First Information Report. (F.I.R.) with the allegation that on the basis of bogus degree of LL.B, he obtained license for practicing as an Advocate in Lower Courts on 07.05.2007 and then for practicing in the High Court on 15.05.2009; after due process, his said degree was found bogus and in this regard inquiry was also conducted by Committee of Punjab Bar Council and Anti-Corruption Establishment. Advocate is such a trusted statutory entity that person comes to him, shares most confident and valuable issues of his/her personal life with him, hands over his/her entire brief to him but if said entity has obtained license on the basis of bogus degree, then it is not mere cheating with the license issuing authority but also with the public-at-large and actual advocates-Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor under instructions of police officials (present in Court) as well as after himself perusing the available record apprises that aforementioned allegation levelled against the petitioner has been established during investigation. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Although, punishment of the alleged offences does not fall within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule whereas refusal is an exception, yet learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor after perusing record apprises that after registration of instant case on 26.09.2018, petitioner absconded, his warrants of arrest were issued on 22.12.2018, proclamation qua him was issued on 05.03.2019, challan report was also submitted in the Court on 19.02.2021 for proceeding against him under Section: 512, Cr.P.C. and then after remaining fugitive from law for sufficient period, he was ultimately arrested in this case on 11.08.2021 meaning thereby that he remained absconder for a period of about three years, therefore, his case falls in the exception to the rule of grant of bail in the cases not falling within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Muhammad Imran versus The State and others" (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 903); relevant portions of the same are hereby reproduced:

"... We have heard the learned counsel and have examined the record of the case. We are cognizant of the fact that the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail in such a matter is a rule and refusal an exception. The grounds for the case to fall within the exceptions meriting denial of bail include (a) the likelihood of the petitioner's abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. The prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exceptions on the basis of the material on the record. See Tariq Bashir,¹ Zafar Iqbal,² Muhammad Tanvir³ and order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No. 529 of 2021.

4. Record shows that the petitioner has been booked in as much as eight criminal cases under the same offence with different complainants and involving sizable amounts of money. These cases span over the years 2018 to 2020 and three cases have been registered after the registration of the instant case. Even though the petitioner has obtained bail in those cases, it does, prima facie, establish that the petitioner is prone to repeating the offence. Petitioner having been declared an absconder in this case for over one and a half year generates the apprehension that the petitioner may avoid standing trial and hence delay the prosecution of the case. The material on record makes the case of the petitioner falls under two exceptions to the rule of grant of bail as mentioned above.

(emphasis added).

3. In view of what has been discussed, no case for grant of post-arrest bail has been made out. Therefore, instant petition is without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.

4. It is, however, clarified that observations mentioned above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and shall have no bearing upon trial of the case, which in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, shall be concluded strictly on merits in accordance with law within two months after receipt of attested copy of this order.

(R.A.)  Petition dismissed