PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 134
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
ILYAS AHMAD--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8325-B of 2016, decided on 8.8.2016.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 467, 468 & 471--Bail before arrest grant of--Delay of 4 years in registration of FIR--At one stage pre-arrest bail of petitioner was confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 10.04.2014 after considering merits of case but later on order was recalled due to non-appearance of petitioner which fact shows that Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has recalled order on sole consideration of non-appearance of petitioner otherwise there was no allegation of misusing or abusing concession of bail against petitioner--A petition moved by complainant for cancellation of pre-arrest bail was also dismissed by Court of competent jurisdiction--Today learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner could not appear before trial Court as he has gone to Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah, thus, explanation furnished by counsel for petitioner seems to High Court to be plausible--I may observe here that in such like situation instead of recalling bail granting order trial Court should have forfeited surety bonds in first instance--The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, nothing is to be recovered from her, no useful purpose would be served by sending petitioner behind bars--False implication of petitioner by complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with local police cannot be ruled out of consideration--This petition is, therefore, allowed.
[Para 2 & 3] A, B & C
Mr. Zahid Aziz Bhutta, Advocate for Petitioner in person.
Mr. Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Mr. Shah Jahan Khan, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 8.8.2016.
Order
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Ilyas Ahmad petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 79/14, dated 30.01.2014 registered at Police Station Naseer Abad, Lahore in respect of offences under Sections 420/467/468/471, PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1997.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail before arrest, therefore, only tentative assessment is required at this stage. There is a delay of four years, seven months and sixteen days in registration of the FIR which has not been explained by the complainant therein. The complainant has also filed civil suit regarding the same disputed property which is still pending before the proper forum. An application for registration of criminal case containing same set of allegation had carlier been dismissed by the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace before lodging the instant case by the Sub-Registrar, Model Town Sub-Division, Lahore. At one stage pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 10.04.2014 after considering the merits of the case but later on the order was recalled due to non-appearance of the petitioner which fact shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has recalled the order on sole consideration of non-appearance of the petitioner otherwise there was no allegation of misusing or abusing the concession of bail against the petitioner. It goes without saying here that a petition moved by the complainant for cancellation of pre-arrest bail was also dismissed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court as he has gone to Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah, thus, the explanation furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner seems to this Court to be plausible. I may observe here that in such like situation instead of recalling the bail granting order the learned trial Court should have forfeited the surety bonds in the first instance. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, nothing is to be recovered from her, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police cannot be ruled out of consideration. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2016 is hereby confirmed subject to her furnishing of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioner does not appear before the learned trial Court in connection with trial proceedings in future, then the learned trial Court is at liberty to pass an appropriate order in this regard.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments