The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 1292/2006 dated 30.12.2006 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC. The said F.I.R. was registered at P.S. Baghbanpura, Lahore.
2. According to the F.LR., the complainant Mahabat Khan son of Haidar Zaman is an employee of one Mehr Muhammad Asif Ali to look after his business affairs. Mehr Muhammad Asif Ali had business dispute with one Nazir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ramzan. Muhammad Ramzan and said Nazir Ahmad in collusion with each other prepared a bogus power of attorney. They also got registered F.I.R. No. 601/06 under Section 489-F PPC, P.S. Gujarpura, Lahore against Mehr Muhammad Asif Ali. Complainant contacted general branch of DCO, office to find out the authenticity of the said `Mukhtarnama'. The verification Letter No. 4593 dated 13.12.2006 was issued by the District Officer (Revenue)/Collector, City Lahore. Through said letter it was confirmed that the above-mentioned `Mukhtarnama' was manoeuvred as the same was shown issued on stamp paper issued by one Muhammad Waseem. No person with the name of Muhammad Waseem was ever issued a license to deal with the stamp papers. The above-mentioned accused persons prepared a bogus "stamp" of a Stamp vendor and also entered incorrect and forged particulars.
They themselves prepared forged `Mukhtarnama' in favour of Muhammad Ramzan from Muhammad Nazir to use the same in different offices.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that involvement of the petitioners is based on mala fide and they have not committed any offence. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab has opposed this bail on the ground that the petitioners have been found guilty during the course of investigation, therefore, prima facie, they are connected with the commission of the offence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with this petition. The whole controversy relates to a power-of-attorney. The office of the Revenue Authorities i.e. District Officer (Revenue) claims that the vendor Muhammad Waseem sold the stamp papers. The stamp of the Stamp vendor was also found bogus by the Revenue Authorities.
The said fact has not been explained by the learned counsel for the petitioners. During the course of investigation on the basis of the above material, petitioners have been declared guilty by I.O.
Police Authorities and Revenue Authorities operate separately and independently under different chain of commands. They are not expected to act malafidely or with ulterior motive against the petitioners. Simultaneously, the above-mentioned power of attorney was executed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 whereas, Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 stood marginal witnesses of the power-of- attorney. Existence of `Mukhtarnama' is also not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a matter of fact, a copy thereof is annexed with this bail application. The recovery of the original is still to be effected.
5. The learned counsel heavily referred to PLD 1983 SC 82. In the said judgment it was observed as under: "As already observed, it has been reiterated by this Court in earlier noted cases that the condition of arrest being for ulterior motives, for example, that of humiliation and unjustified harassment is a necessary condition for pre-arrest bail."
Another consideration was noted in the same judgment: "One of the main considerations for grant of bail is whether the prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to a citizen's reputation and liberty."
Another point noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case is: "In the case of Muhammad Azam wherein this Court accepted an appeal, one of the allegations was that the accused were the victims of departmental intrigues and jealousies and the intended arrest was to harass and ridicule the accused with an ulterior motive to disgrace them through the process of being handcuffed?"
6. After examining the previous case law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded in the following words: "This Court always thought it necessary to look for such circumstances which would furnish the assumption that the police was motivated on political considerations or other ulterior reasons, before granting pre-arrest bail."
The preceding paras show that it were the Revenue Authorities who declared that Muhammad Waseem was never issued a licence to sell stamp paper on which the power of attorney was prepared. They also found that necessary entries never existed in the record. In such circumstances, there is no basis to attribute ulterior motive to the police. In the above circumstances Murad Khan's case, PLD 1983 SC 82 is not helpful to the present petitioners.
7. Learned counsel has also referred to Shabir Ahmad vs. The State, PLD 1981 Lah. 599. In the said judgment it was held: "This power to grant pre-arrest bail should sparingly be exercise in propriate cases. The Court should strictly avoid the exercise of this power at random, which is likely to embarrass the prosecution in investigation as usually is he general complaint. The balance has to be kept and each case has to be dealt with on its own merits. Every murderer, bmglar, dacoit or a person accused of offence disturbing the tranquillity of the SIRE) akfa destroying the peaceful living of citizens should not automatically get pre-arrest bail on mere asking. The Court should seriously apply its mind before passing the order of pre-arrest bail."
'As noted above, the record of the Revenue Authorities as well as police investigation shows that, prima facie, there is sufficient material against the petitioners. The above-mentioned material also shows that ulterior motive cannot be attributed to the police as a bedrock of the present case against the petitioners.
8. In Muhammad Aslam us. The State, 1999 M LD 1833, the petitioner was refused pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 467, 468 & 471, PPC, as the allegation against him was that he being a stamp vendor fraudulently and with the connivance of the other persons got registered general power-of-attorney in his favour. Similarly, in Muhammad Siddiq Awan vs. The State, 2003 PCr.LJ 890, under the similar offences, pre-arrest bail was refused while observing that, "merely because the offence was not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years' imprisonment, was no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail in each and every case " Likewise, in another case under the same offence i.e. Syed Ali Hasnain Kirmani vs. The State, 2001 P.Cr.R. 890, the bail was refused on ground of existence of record of Auqaf Department against the petitioner. The Court observed that, "both the petitioners have been found guilty as a result of the police investigation. Auqaf Department has no mala fide against the petitioners."
9. In the present case, as noted above, the police have found the petitioners guilty and gully involved on the basis of material provided by the Revenue Authorities. Apparently, there is no reason to believe that Revenue Authorities have any enmity,or mala fide against the petitioners.
The grounds for granting post-arrest bail and pre-arrest bail are entirely different. The Court is required only to see, prima facie, element of mala fide or on part of the police, etc. The Court cannot enter into a detailed inquiry or appreciation of the evidence. As mentioned above: the recovery of the original power-of-attorney is still to be effected from the petitioners.
10.In view of the above discussion and reasons/grounds, this application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.