The accused petitioner Abdul Hameed has been declined bail by Mr. Sharif Ahmad Senior Special Judge Anti-corruption NWFP Peshawar vide his order dated 22-10-07 in case FIR No, 16 dated 18-10- 2006 under Sections 419-420-468-471-PPC read with Section 5(2) PC Act of Police Station ACE Peshawar. Now he has applied to this Court for bail.
2. Arguments of Mr. Jamroz Khan advocate for accused petitioner and Mr. saadat-ur-Rehaman advocate for the Sate have been heard in the light of record.
3. According to the prosecution case, valuable land measuring 40 Marla was allotted to Kashmir who 'entered in to agreements to sell through their registered power of attorney.. holder Muhammad Bashir for Rs, 80,00,000/- out of which Rs, 40,(16,000/- were paid in advance by the vendee. This transaction took place on the basis of PTD No, 890786. Subsequent thereto, the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed, who is not Kashmir refugee, arranged a fake PTD No, 325580 in his name and sold the same property to Hazrat Khan etc for Rs, 25,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner took the point that the co-accused namely Syed Gul Mohammad. and ,Mohammad Bashir have since been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2007, the accused petitioner is entitled be released on bail on the principle of consistency. But I believe that the principle of consistency is not attracted in the case of accuse& Petitioner for the pivotal role which he has played. In fact he is the beneficiary of the alleged fraud involving huge amount and valuable property. He has also a background of involvement in another similar case referred in the final report of the I.O. dated 16.7.2006 according to which he twice sold his own house on the basis of forged document and in this regard case F.I.R. No, 2 dated 31.1.2006 of Police Station Anti-Corruption under Sections 420/468/471 P.P.C. read with Section 5 (2)
P.C. Act is also pending against him.
5. The next point of the learned counsel fog .the petitioner was that the offences are punishable up to seven years imprisonment and the case is not hit by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. No doubt, this is a general rule, but subject to exception too. When there are allegations of repeated commission of the same offences, directly affecting the society, the person involved may loose his right of bail based on general principles. This is to safeguard the public from his deceitful designs. In similar cases bail has been refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, as held in cases Tanweer Ahmad Haral vs. The State (2002 SCM R 1327) and Mehrban Ali vs. The State and another (2004 SCM R 229).
7. With these views, Since there is an established prima facie case, I do not want to exercise the discretion in favor accused petitioner in enlarging him on bail. However while with the order, it is directed, that challan be immediately and the trial Court should fix the case for trial for earliest disposal on merits.