The petitioner Khalid Aziz Malik seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 49/09, dated 21.1.2009 for offence under Section 489-F, PPC registered with Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore at the instance of Mansoor Ahmed, Inspector NAB Punjab, Lahore.
2. According to the allegations, NAB Punjab filed a reference No. 27/2003 in the Accountability Court No. 1 against the Directors of Malik Food Industries alleging the embezzlement of funds of National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., which is still pending adjudication in the said Court. Accused moved an application before NAB Punjab for plea bargain during pendency of said reference which was accepted and as such one of the Directors of Malik Food Industries namely Khalid Aziz Malik present petitioner issued Cheque No. 1716143, dated 8.11.2008 amounting to Rs.
3,21,29,000/- drawn at HBL Main Market Branch Gulberg, Lahore in favour of Chairman NAB which on presentation was dishonoured by the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that post dated cheque was issued by the petitioner as a security while payment was subject to sale of the properties. He further submits that the very basis of filing a reference was an ex parte order dated 11.7.1998 for payment of Rs. 8,29,56,772/- passed by the learned Cooperative Judge on the petition under Section 7(v) of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 filed by the Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation, but the said order was recalled vide order dated 24.11.2008 passed in petition No. 28-C of 1998 (Application under Section 12(2), CPC by the learned Cooperative Judge. He further submits that order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the learned Judge Accountability Court No. 1, Lahore allowing the approval of agreement of Plea Bargain has been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 407/09 in which the said order was suspended on 10.2.2009, followed by another order dated 16.4.2009 staying the proceeding of the learned Accountability Court.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Prosecutor NAB submits that after accepting the request of the petitioner for Plea Bargain by the Chairman NAB, the learned Accountability Court accorded approval of the agreement having executed by the petitioner on the same day i.e. 11.8.2008 and he submitted a post dated cheque of Rs. 3,21,29,000/- as security with the promise to return the aforesaid amount as Plea Bargain by way of selling of their properties on or before 7.11.2008.
Thereafter the request of the petitioner through letter dated 4.12.2008 for further extension of time was turned down by the NAB and it was accordingly informed to him vide letter dated 17.12.2008, on failure of the petitioner to pay the amount as agreed by him, cheque was presented for encashment which was bounced by the bank, and thereafter case was got registered on 21.1.2009.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have observed that admittedly petitioner moved an application to Chairman NAB for Plea Bargain which was accepted by him vide order dated 6.8.2008 and after the acceptance of request made by the petitioner, he executed an agreement on 8.112008 and on the same day learned Accountability Court, Lahore accorded the approval of Plea Bargain. According to the agreement, petitioner was supposed to make payment of the cheque in question in lump sum by way of selling his properties or through other sources on or before 7.11.2008. His request to further extend the time was' turned down by the NAB. Recalling of the order dated 11.7.1998 which was the basis for filing a reference against the petitioner on 24.11.2008 is of no avail to the petitioner as by that time, he had already entered into a Plea Bargain agreement with the NAB and similarly the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 409/09 on 10.2.2009 suspending the order dated 11.8.2008 is also of no help to the petitioner as the F.I.R. Was registered much before the said order and similarly the order dated 16.4.2009 staying the proceeding of the learned Trial Court has no bearing on bail application moved by the petitioner. The bail application is not a part of the main case being tried. Petitioner admittedly issued the cheque and he is bound to face the consequences on account of its being dishonoured by the paying bank. Huge amount of Rs. 3,21,29,000/- is involved and the petitioner has failed to point of any mala fide either of the complainant or the police to falsely implicate him in this case. It is well-settled law that pre-arrest bail relief is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such case was based on enmity, mala fide or where no offence was shown to be committed on the very face of record. The concession of bail before arrest is to be granted to an accused if it is established that his involvement in the case is based on mala fide by the prosecution; reliance is placed , on "Mst. Qudrat Bibi v. Muhammad Iqbal" (PLD 2003 SC 68), "Zia-ul- Hassan v. The State" (PLD 1984 SC 192) and "Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan" (PLD 1983 SC 82).
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is hardly any good ground to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, application is dismissed and the order dated 6.7.2008 granting ad-interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is recalled.