' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.-~ Through this application the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,96 of 2006 dated 16-10-2006 under sections 420/468/471 /489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Sahiwal.
2. Prior to approaching this Court, the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for grant of pre-arrest bail. After refusal of bail from said Court vide order dated 22- 11-2006 the petitioner has submitted the present application before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Which was lodged at the instance of Zaheer Ahmad are that one Vehicle/Car bearing No,LOG 8768 was sold' by the petitioner to the complainant against the consideration of Rs,3,90,000 and .Rs,5,000 was paid by him to Muhammad Shafique commission agent. The car in question was delivered to the complainant. Subsequently it transpired that said vehicle was stolen one, upon which the complainant demanded for the return of the sale amount but instead of returning the amount Salamat Ali petitioner handed over a cheque to the complainant which was subsequently dishonoured.
4. In support of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that F.I.R. Was registered with a delay of about ten months; that original cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner is not in possession of the prosecution; that the petitioner is totally innocent and he has been involved due to the mala fides of the police and the complainant.
5. Conversely the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner sold abovementioned vehicle to the complainant against the consideration of Rs,3,90,000 and handed over duplicate copy of the registration of the said car. Thereafter he intimated the complainant that registration of said car was not genuine and requested for return of said vehicle to him and for ensuring the return of consideration amount of said car he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that with mala fide intention he got a case registered against one Munawar Ali Mughal regarding said car vide F.I.R. No, 181/86 but subsequently got the said case cancelled. He adds that the cheque issued by the petitioner which was subsequently bounced back being bogus was shown to the petitioner who received the same but malafidely torn it into pieces and the prosecution presently is in possession of photocopy of said cheque. He adds that the cheque which was delivered by the petitioner to the complainant pertained to an account maintained by one Muhammad Amin who is driver of the petitioner and fraudulently he had signed leaf of Cheque Book of said Muhammad Amin and delivered the same to the complainant. To show the connection of the petitioner with said Muhammad Amin the learned counsel for the complainant has made reference to the F.I.Rs, Nos.305 of 2005 and 88 of 006. F.I.R. No,305 of 2005 has been lodged at the instance of said Muhammad Amin while petitioner is witness in said F.I.R. While, in the other F.I.R. Said Muhammad Amin is witness and the petitioner is complainant. On the basis of said contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for the dismissal of the petition in hand.
6. The police officer, who is present in the Court submits that the petitioner is required by him for further investigation.
7. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and going through the concerned documents it has been found that apart from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitles him to the concession of pre-arrest bail inasmuch as on the date of confirmation of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner did not opt to appear before him and consequently said application was dismissed on merits. As far as merit of the case is concerned serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He is specifically named in the F.I.R. The relief of extraordinary bail can only be granted in appropriate cases as same, is meant, to protect the good names of the citizens. Most prominent ingredient for grant of prearrest bail is to show mala fides of police and the complainant against the accused.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon case reported as Murad v. Fazle-Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82 and Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192. No ill-will or previous enmity has been pointed out by the petitioner against the complainant. Prima facie the offences of fraud and forgery, as alleged by the prosecution have been' made out against the petitioner as such he is not found to be entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently application in hand being meritless in dismissed.
Pre-arrest .