Muhammad Rafique petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 214/08 dated 21.7.2008 registered with Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore at the instance of Muhammad Amjad complainant u/S420 PPC regarding the occurrence allegedly taken place on 07.07.2008.
2. According to the FIR petitioner posing himself as representative of Unit Lever Company asked the complainant on Telephone to transfer Rs,7800/- in his account for delivering the car, which has been drawn as prize in his name but after transferring the said amount in the account, petitioner did not contact the complainant and thus committed fraud with the complainant in order to usurp Rs, 7800/-.
3. Although the offence u/S. 420 PPC is bailable but petitioner instead of submitting bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Area Magistrate, moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for the grant of anticipatory bail and the said application was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Gill, learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide order dated 11.9.2000 refused to confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and dismissed the same while relying on a judgment of the Apex Court passed in a case titled as Muhammad Siddique and others Vs. The State (2004 P.S.0 Crl. 402) with the observation that even in a bailable offences instead of filing bail bonds accused has to file pre-arrest bail application.
4. The facts of the aforesaid judgment, which has been made basis by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge for refusing bail are quite distinguishable from the present case because from the reading of the said judgment it is not clear that under which Sections of Pakistan Penal Code case was registered but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the said case had tried to persuade the learned Court that at the best a case u/S. 420 PPC is made out, which is bailable, the same was only contention of the learned counsel, it does not mean that in fact the said case was registered u/S. 420 PPC and petitioner was seeking bail for the said offence. Fault also lies with the petitioner, who approached the learned Sessions Judge for the grant of pre-arrest bail instead of approaching the learned Area Magistrate for submitting bail bonds.
5. For getting bail in a bailable offences, the law has already been settled by the Apex Court in a case titled as Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri and others Vs. The State (PLD 1963 S.0 478). The relevant portion is at page 485, which is reproduced below: "The policy of the Code seems to be that in the case of bailable offences the person accused has the indefeasible right to grant of bail subject of course to satisfactory sureties being offered, if sureties are considered necessary. There is admittedly no provision in the Code permitting cancellation of such a bail. Bail is not a mere privilege in such cases but a right of the subject whose liberty is regarded as a previous asset to be preserved undiminished. If of course the person enlarged on bail suborns witnesses there may be other remedies at law open against him, e.g. contempt proceedings or conceivably even proceedings to bind him over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour in certain circumstances. But to hold that on such ground the bail granted u/S. 496 of the Code can be cancelled, amounts to saying that the High Court possesses inherent power to override the express provisions of the Code. Such a conclusion would be contrary to principle and finds no support from any other .authority."
6. For the forgoing reasons, this petition is accepted with the direction to the petitioner to approach the learned Area Magistrate and submit bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000/- (the thousand) with one surety in the like-amount to his satisfaction.