' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Malik Asim Saeed and Malik Waqas Saeed, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 568 of 2007, dated 4-6- 2007 registered under section 406, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line's, Lahore on the application of Muhammad Sohail Ahmad, the complainant.
2. According to the contents of F.I.R., the complainant had purchased 6000 U.K. Pounds from the petitioners against the consideration of Rs.6,90,000 and the petitioners issued a Bank Draft in favour of the complainant for the said amount to be withdrawn from Habib Bank. Later on, the complainant returned the Bank Draft to the petitioners, but the petitioners did not pay back the money and got enchased the Draft themselves.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent and earlier F.I.R. No. 256 of 2007 was registered at Police Station FIA Circle, Lahore on 7-5-2007 in which the complainant had narrated a different story that the said amount of Rs.6,90000 was obtained in the presence of the witnesses by the petitioner Malik Asim with the promise to send him abroad for the purpose of employment and same story has been reiterated in the present F.I.R. That Malik Asim had moved an application for bail before arrest in which copy of present F.I.R. Was produced and the complainant Muhammad Sohail Ahmad made a statement that he has entered into compromise and did not press the bail application. Later on, he moved similar application in favour of the petitioners that their bail before arrest may be confirmed; that the complainant is liar as he has introduced three accused persons including the petitioners in the present case, who are not accused in the earlier F.I.R. Lodged with the FIA; that two affidavits have been placed on record, which were executed by the complainant, according to which he had received total amount from both the petitioners and gave a note on the side that he would not pursue the case. In such circumstances, bail before arrest may be confirmed.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the accused-petitioners have committed breach of trust and the FIA had no authority to register the case under section 406, P.P.C. And a separate case was registered; that on 3-9-2007 the petitioners had promised to make payment of Rs.90,000 which was not paid.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The petitioner has placed on record copy of F.I.R. No. C/256 of 2007 registered on 7-5-2007 at Police Station FIA/PC, Lahore with the allegation that Malik Asim Saeed petitioner along with one Hussain Ahmad Madni had deprived him of an amount of Rs.6,90,000 for sending him abroad with promise to employment there. Malik Asim Saeed applied for pre-arrest bail and the application was allowed by the learned Special Judge (C), Lahore vide orders, dated 3-7-2007 on the statement made by the complainant that a compromise had been effected between them and he was left with no claim against Malik Asim Saeed, A petitioner. The instant F.I.R. Is also for the same amount, but with a different story. The mala fide on the part of the complainant is crystal clear, who seems to have Converted the civil dispute between the parties into criminal offence by lodging two F.I.Rs. With different stories regarding the same amount to pressurize them for the return of the amount. Even otherwise, as per statement made before the learned Special Judge (C), Lahore, the complainant is left with no claim against the accused/petitioners and somersault cannot be taken.
In the present case nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners and sending them to jail will not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Hence, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court vide orders, dated 11-10-2007 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.