' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Muhammad Iqbal petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station Malka Hans for offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,288 dated 16-11-2005.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Saleem first informant is that petitioner being Manager of the H.B.L. Along with co-accused after forging documents, obtained a loan on the complainant's name whereas complainant is landless, who was shown owner of 106 Kanals, 10 Marlas land through Mutation No,1085 dated 8-9-2004 of Village Chak Sanday, hence the present F.I.R.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of one year in the registration of the case; that the documents prepared for sanction of loan in favour of the complainant were prepared by the Revenue officials, which were verified by the agricultural Field Officer and ultimately the case was forwarded for sanction by the petitioner as Branch Manager; that there is no direct evidence of having any connivance on the part of the petitioner with the other accused persons; that the case has been lodged in order to create an excuse for non- payment of the loan amount; that the amount in question had already been deposited by Saeed Ahmad although a co-accused but a guarantor of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed this application by contending that there is no delay in the F.I.R. The moment the complainant case to know about the loan created against him he immediately started activity against the petitioner and other co-accused; that the petitioner is involved in many other cases of identical nature of the same branch; that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The delay in the instant case prima facie does not appear to be fatal if the story put forwarded by the complainant is believed to be true, however, I would not like to comment upon this fact at this stage. Admittedly the amount in question had already been deposited by Saeed Ahmad co- accused who is recorded to be guarantor on the part of the complainant. Prima facie at this stage, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had any connivance or interest of personal gain in the matter. There may be some negligence on his part in not properly examining the record of the loan case; therefore keeping all these factors in view, pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17-1-2006 is confirmed.