Apprehending their arrest at the hands of police, Muhammad I lashim, Muhammad Aslam and Masood Ahmed, petitioners have sought for their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 266, dated 27.09.2010, offence under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 34, PPC, lodged at Police , Station Farid Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners, as per the contents of FIR, is that on 03.11.2006, they usurped a huge amount of Rs, 12,00,000/- of.the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are in nocent and have falsely been involved in this case by the complainant for satisfying ulterior motives just to humiliate the petitioners and cause them unjustified harassment. It is argued that there is a delay of four years, which has not been explained. Learned counsel vehemently urges that the complainant had filed civil suit for specific performance against the petitioners on 27.10.2009 regarding this fact and lodging of the instant, case after a delay of one year subsequent to the filing of the civil suit, can he termed mola fide on his part. Learned counsel further argues that evidence against the petitioners is in the shape of documents and there is no apprehension of their tampering with the same. In this backdrop, learned counsel submits, case of the petitioners is fit for the relief prayed for.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition with full force. Learned counsel for the complainant argues that the petitioners are nominated in the FIR, who usurped huge amount of the complainant; therefore, they are not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. Although the petitioners are named in the FIR: however, there is a delay of four years in lodging the crime report, which has not been properly explained. Perusal of record further reveals that the complainant had filed a civil suit against the petitioners and others on 27.10.2009 meaning thereby that he came to know at that time about the alleged fraud of the petitioners and now registration of case on 27.09.2010 alter one year, in the circumstances, shows his mala fide. Even otherwise during the proceedings of the civil suit, the complainant could have invoked the jurisdiction of that Court as provided under Section 195(c), Cr.P.C, which has not been done.
7. I find much weight in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence against the petitioners is in the shape of documents, which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution/ Investigating Agency and if they are admitted to bail there is no apprehension of their tampering with the prosecution evidence. Guidance in this behalf is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saeed Ahmed Vs. The State (1995 SCM R 170).
8. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, I am persuaded to accept this petition as a consequence whereof ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners in terms of order dated 15.11.2010 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Its.10,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.