PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 54
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural, J.
MUHAMMAD AHMAD @ ARBAZ BUTT--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 31927-B & 30836-B of 2023, decided on 1.6.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 381--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Committed theft--Case of petitioner who according to his counsel was neither employee in company of complainant nor accompanied co-accused at time of alleged occurrence--When confronted with learned counsel for complainant, he frankly conceded that said petitioner was neither employee in company nor present in CCTV footage--In attending circumstances, possibility of false implication of petitioner with malafide intention and just to widen net cannot be ruled out--In these circumstances, no purpose would be served by sending petitioner behind bars, which would undoubtedly cause unjustified humiliation and disgrace to him in public--The petitioner has already joined investigation and nothing could be recovered from his possession--So, insistence of investigating agency upon arrest of petitioner appears to be unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith--Resultantly, this petition to extent of petitioner is s allowed.
[Para 4] A
Mr. Arslan Sarfraz, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Javaid Iqbal Malik, Advocate for Petitioners (in Crl. Misc. No. 30836-B-23)
Ch. Muhammad Ishaque, Addl. Prosecutor General State.
Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 1.6.2023.
Order
Through this common order, I intend to decide the titled petition filed by petitioner Muhammad Ahmad @ Arbaz Butt and connected Crl. Misc. No. 30836-B of 2023 filed by petitioners Qurban Ali @ Bhalu and Farman Ali whereby they have sought pre arrest bail in terms of Section 498, Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 521/23 dated 06.04.2023, in respect of an offence under Section 381, PPC, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Gujranwala.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the petitioners is that on 14.01.2023 at about 3.30 p.m. they along with their co-accused committed theft of three cheque books and cash amount of
Rs. 50,00,000/-from the office of the complainant. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Law Officer appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
4. First of all, I would like to discuss the case of petitioner Qurban Ali @ Bhalu, who according to his learned counsel was neither employee in the company of complainant nor accompanied the co-accused at the time of alleged occurrence. When confronted with the learned counsel for the complainant, he frankly conceded that said petitioner was neither employee in the company nor present in the CCTV footage. In the attending circumstances, possibility of false implication of the petitioner with malafide intention and just to widen the net cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, which would undoubtedly cause unjustified humiliation and disgrace to him in the public. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing could be recovered from his possession. So, insistence of the investigating agency upon arrest of the petitioner appears to be unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith. Resultantly, this petition to the extent of petitioner Qurban Ali @ Bhala is s allowed and the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to said petitioner stands confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-(one lac) each with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. So far as the case of petitioners Muhammad Ahmad @ Arbaz Butt and Farman Ali is concerned, they are well named in the crime report with a specific role of committing theft of three cheque books and huge amount of Rs. 5 Million from the office of the complainant. CCTV footage is available on record, where both the petitioners are visible while committing theft of cheque books and cash amount, which prima facie substantiated the contents of crime report. Admittedly, petitioner Muhammad Ahmad @ Arbaz was employee in the office of the complainant and was possessing the key of the drawer, whereas, petitioner Farman Ali was his friend. During investigation, they were found fully involved in this occurrence and recovery of the stolen property is yet to be effected from them. Pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons where the intended arrest of an accused is found to be actuated by mala fide on part of the complainant or the police as held by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled “Mukhtar Ahmad versus The State” (2016 SCMR 2064)”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive for false implication of the petitioners in this case. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is hereby dismissed to the extent of Muhammad Ahmad @ Arbaz Butt and Farman Ali. The order granting ad interim pre-arrest bail to the said petitioners is hereby recalled.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments