The petitioner Unilever Pakistan Limited Avari Plaza, Fatima Jinnah Road, Karachi through its Manager, Colonel (Retd.) Muhammad Saleem Lali seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Muhammad Rafique (Respondent No, 1), in case FIR No, 249 dated 13.6.2004 registered at Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif for offence under Section 489-F, PPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a multinational company engaged in the manufacture of products of daily use. The said products are supplied to various distributors appointed by the company. Muhammad Rafique (Respondent No, 1) was one of such distributors who had been purchasing goods from the company from time to time and had been issuing cheques as consideration for the said goods. According to the FIR in the month of March, 2004 the company supplied ten different consignments to Respondent No, 1 valued at Rs, 9877050/- for which cheques had been issued by Respondent No,
1. The complainant alleged that when the said cheques were presented for encashment they were dishonoured by the bank and according to him Respondent No, 1 had deliberately issued cheques with criminal intention with a view to misappropriating the amount of the company.
3. After registration of the aforesaid case Respondent No, 1 applied for his pre-arrest bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Arifwala, who after allowing ad-interim pre-arrest bail to him on 15.6.2004 proceeded to confirm the same vide his impugned order dated 9.7.2004. Hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for cancellation of bail argued that the impugned order dated 9.7.2004 whereby Respondent No, 1 had been extended the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail in such a serious matter like the one in hand is not tenable in law; that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was under the impression that the offence under Sec. 489-F, PPC was bailable; that the petitioner which was a multi-national company did not have any personal grudge or animosity against Respondent No, 1 and as such the act of registration of case could not be termed as a mala fide act; that there was no occasion for the police to have acted against Respondent No, 1 in a malicious manner. He finally argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between a pre-arrest bail and a post-arrest bail.
5. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Aslam Zia and Mr. G.M. Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that once concession of bail has been extended, this Court is always very slow to recall the said order unless it is shown that the same was arbitrary, perverse of fanciful.
According to them there was no allegation against Respondent No, 1 that he was tempering with the evidence, was misusing the concession of bail or is likely to abscond, The learned counsel for the complainant, however, did not challenge the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Sec. 489-F, PPC was not bailable. They finally argued that considerations for cancellation of bail being totally different, there was no material available on the record to justify cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent.
6. Sheikh Asghar Ali, the learned State Counsel chose to oppose the plea for cancellation of bail and went to the extent of arguing that Sec. 489-F, PPC was bailable. He strenuously defended the bail granting order.
7. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the record brought by Muhammad Hussain S.I.
8. The main ground which prevailed with the learned trial Court in extending the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to Respondent No, 1 was that the offence under Sec. 489-F, PPC was bailable. In this connection the learned Addl. Sessions Judge relied on the case of 'Muhammad Mukhtiar versus Sajjad Hussain and 2 others" (PLJ 2004 Crl. Cases. Lahore 545), wherein this Court had held that the offence under Section 489-F, PPC was bailable. His Lordship had recorded this observation as on the said occasion the original text of Sec. 489-F, PPC as also the amendment brought about in Schedule-II to the Criminal Procedure Code had not been placed before the Court. According to the Gazette Notification extraordinary issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice, Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs (Law Justice and. Human Rights Division) Islamabad dated the 25th. October, 2002, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 Ordinance No, LXXXV of 2002) had been published according to which the offence under Section 489-F, PPC is cognizable, not bailable, not compoundable and entails maximum imprisonment for three years or with fine or with both. It is thus clear that proper legal assistance was not rendered to this Court in the case reported. supra. Even otherwise keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the signatures on the cheques are not denied by Respondent No,
1. It was not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to Respondent. No, 1.
9. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail granted to Respondent No, 1 by the learned Addl. Sessions Arifwala vide order dated 9.7.2004 is hereby recalled.