PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 125
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Shehram Sarwar Ch., J.
AFTAB AHMAD (MALIK)--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 37474-B of 2017, decided on 14.7.2017.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380, 420, 467, 468 & 471--Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947), S. 5--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Executed fake sale-deed and power of attorney in respect of property--The petitioner is an identifier and not beneficiary of alleged transactions/transfer of property--Main beneficiary of case is Ilyas Ahmad who has been allowed pre-arrest bail by High Court--Held: Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973--It is a settled principle of law that Court can even look into and evaluate malafide from facts and circumstances of case, which apparently oozing in this case from facts and circumstances malafide on part of complainant for false implication petitioners cannot be ruled out of petitioners cannot be ruled out—Petition disposed of. [Para 3] A, B & C
PLD 1998 SC 97 and 2005 SCMR 784.
Mr. Zahid Aziz Bhutta, Advocate along with Petitioner.
Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, DDPP for State.
Ch. Shah Nawaz Dhiloon, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 14.7.2017.
Order
Aftab Ahmad (Malik), petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 79 dated 30.01.2014 offence under Sections 380, 420, 467, 468 and 471 PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) registered at Police Station Naseer Abad District Lahore.
2. Precisely the prosecution story, as set out in the FIR, is that Haroon Manzoor etc. Executed fake sale deed and power of attorney in respect of property of the complainant and got the same transferred firstly in the name of Asif Fasih-ud-Din and subsequently in the names of Malik Ilyas and Malik Iftikhar.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned DDPP and going through the record, it has been observed as follows:-
(a) As per relevant column of the FIR, the alleged incident took place on 14.06.2009 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 30.01.2014 i.e. with the delay of about four and a half years without there being any satisfactory explanation.
(b) The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and the, case was got registered against Malik Ilyas, Malik Iftikhar, Asif Fasih-ud-Din, Haroon Manzoor, Saleem Gill, Sami UllahChatha and Murid. Hussain.
(c) Learned DDPP under instructions of the police official, present in Court and after perusal of record has confirmed that during investigation, it was concluded that the petitioner appeared before the Local Commission/Sub Registrar and identified Asif Fasih-ud-Din as Secretary, Estate Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. Lahore.
(d) The petitioner is an identifier and not the beneficiary of alleged transactions/transfer of property. Main beneficiary of the case is Ilyas Ahmad who has been allowed pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 8325-B/2016.
(e) Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the malafide from the facts and circumstances of the case, which apparently oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances discussed above. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case laws reported as “Ajmal Khan vs. Liaqat Hayat and another” (PLD 1998 SC 97) and “Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others vs. The State” (2005 SCMR 784).
(f) In view of the above, mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out.
4. For what has been observed above, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 07.06.2017 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.
(A.A.K.) Petition disposed of
0 Comments