PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 47
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
MUHAMMAD KHIZAR HAYAT--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2546-B of 2023, decided on 10.5.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 160, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471--Pre-arrest bail, grant of-- This is a pre-arrest bail and only a tentative assessment of evidentiary material produced before Court can be made at this stage--No statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. has been recorded by Investigating Officer of case during investigation of case wherein it had been stated by any witness that petitioner was acting in connivance with officials posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala--The prosecution case itself is that it were Ex-Land Record Officer, Toseef Iqbal, Service Center Official, Service Center Official and Service Center Official, posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, who had created all forged record with regard to land holdings while posted at Jalalpur Pirwala, however, creation of any forged record is not alleged as against petitioner--In this manner, case of petitioner is quite distinct from his co-accused--The Investigating Officer of case, present before Court, submits that nothing stands to be recovered from possession of petitioner--The version of petitioner has already been verified by Investigating Officer--The assertion of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been involved in occurrence due to mala fide and malicious intent, is an assertion, which cannot be said to be without basis or foundation--In view of peculiar circumstances of case, sending petitioner behind bars at this stage would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose--Petition allowed. [Para 4] A, B, C & D
PLD 2017 SC 730.
Syed Jafar Tayayr Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Additional Prosecutor General with Rana Muhammad Farooq, Inspector Headquarter, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan.
Date of hearing: 10.5.2023.
Order
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely Muhammad Khizar Hayat, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 15 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020, registered in respect of offences under Sections 161, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, PPC and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II) of 1947, at the Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, District Multan.
2. The allegations against the petitioner, namely Muhammad Khizar Hayat, as culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, are that he acted in connivance with his co-accused posted at the Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, for creation of false and forged record regarding the land holdings, on the said center.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and with their able assistance perused the record.
4. This is a pre-arrest bail and only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court can be made at this stage. A perusal of the record reveals that during the investigation of the case, it was the petitioner himself who submitted a complaint as against the officials posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, stating therein that the forgeries in the revenue record were being committed by the officials posted there and it was on the application of the petitioner himself that proceedings were initiated. In what manner and circumstances, the petitioner was found to have acted in connivance with his co-accused posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, are yet to be determined by the Investigating Officer of the case. No statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case during the investigation of the case wherein it had been stated by any witness that Muhammad Khizar Hayat, the petitioner was acting in connivance with the officials posted at the Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has rightly pointed out that Mst. Sumera Raheem, Service Center Official, posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, is the wife of the petitioner and she too has been found fully involved in the creation of the false record at the said center, therefore, a huge onus lies on the petitioner to explain that he was not in knowledge of the acts of his wife. In this regard, it is observed that Mst. Sumera Raheem, Service Center Official, though admittedly is the wife of the petitioner, however, the question as to whether the petitioner was in knowledge of the activities of Mst. Sumera Raheem, Service Center Official, posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, is the question which requires recording of evidence and at present no such determination can be made and no presumption can be drawn by the Court itself. The prosecution case itself is that it were Muhammad Abu Bakar, Ex-Land Record Officer, Toseef Iqbal, Service Center Official, Muntazir Mehdi, Service Center Official and Mst. Sumera Raheem, Service Center Official, posted at Land Record Center, Jalalpur Pirwala, who had created all the forged record with regard to the land holdings while posted at Jalalpur Pirwala, however, the creation of any forged record is not alleged as against the petitioner. In this manner, the case of the petitioner is quite distinct from his co-accused. The Investigating Officer of the case, present before the Court, submits that nothing stands to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The version of the petitioner has already been verified by the Investigating Officer. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in the occurrence due to mala fide and malicious intent, is an assertion, which cannot be said to be without basis or foundation. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose. Reliance is placed on the case of “Khalil Ahmad Soomro and others v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730), wherein the following principle has been enunciated:
“Although for grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions is that the accused person has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior consideration. At pre-arrest bail stage, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence! Materials and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and if some events-hints to that effect are available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide.”
5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, by this Court, vide order dated 12.04.2023, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments