Imran Rafique and Kamran Rafique, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No,343/2011 dated 28.09.2011 offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 & 471, PPC at Police Station, Daira Rahim District Sahiwal.
2. According to FIR, Malik Sajjad Ahmad, complainant started running business of sale and purchase of raw rice through his agents Kamran Rafique and Imran Rafique (petitioners) in the year 2008-09. The complainant directed his aforementioned agents that they would not be competent to purchase or sale the raw rice without his permission and in the year 2010-11 complainant paid an amount of Rs, 1,23,00,000/-to Kamran Rafique and Imran Rafique (petitioners) for purchase of raw rice. The accused personas assured the complainant that after purchasing the raw rice of aforementioned amount, they have stocked the same at Javaid Rice Mills Arif Wala Road, Sahiwal and Taj Rice Mills Pakpattan Road, Sahiwal. It has further been alleged in the FIR that on 08.03.2011 complainant directed Kamran Rafique etc to sale out the raw rice which had been stocked at Javaid Rice Mills. The accused persons hesitated to do so, therefore, the complainant alongwith witnesses got raw rice checked which had been stocked at the aforesaid mills and it transpired that accused persons did not purchase the raw rice amounting to Rs, 70,00000/-, rather, they had misappropriated the said amount. It is further alleged in the FIR that accused persons made fake and forged entries in the record of Javaid Rice Mills and prepared forged receipts. A punchayat was conveyed in this regard and both the accused persons confessed before them that they had misappropriated the aforementioned amount and returned an amount of Rs, 12,60,000/-in presence of witnesses but they refused to return the remaining amount of Rs, 57,40,000/-. Hence instant FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are neither clerks nor servants of the complainant, rather, according to prosecution own case, petitioners were agents of the complainant, therefore, offence under Section 408, PPC would not be attracted against the petitioners; that offence under Section 420, PPC was bailable; that there was no evidence on record that petitioners forged any document, therefore, offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471, PPC would not be attracted against them; that from the contents of FIR, it was a matter of civil nature as joint business, was being carried out between the petitioners and complainant; that on 29.09.2011 petitioners filed suit for rendition of accounts against Sajjad Ahmad complainant and Aamir Butt clerk posted at Javaid Rice Mills after registration of instant FIR which is pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction; that written statement on behalf of Defendants No,2 & 3 was filed in the said suit and in para 11 of their written statement Malik Muhammad Sarwar proprietor Javaid Rice Mills Arifwala Road, Sahiwal and Aamir Butt clerk posted at aforesaid mill; contended that 732-bags of raw rice were taken by the complainant of this case from their Mill; that complainant obtained a cheque amounting to Rs, 20-lacs from the father of the petitioners as a guarantee; that petitioners have falsely been involved in this case on the basis of malafides.
Thus, it is prayed that by accepting this petition, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is liable to be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G have opposed this petition on the grounds that both the petitioners are nominated in the FIR; that there was specific allegation against both the petitioners that they received an amount of Rs, 1,23,00,000/- from the complainant for purchase of raw rice; that complainant directed the petitioners to purchase the raw rice amounting to Rs, 70,00000/- and petitioners assured the complainant that they have purchased raw rice amounting to Rs, 70,00000/- and have stocked the same at Javaid Rice Mills Arifwala Road, Sahiwal, but it transpired that inspite of purchasing the raw rice they misappropriated the aforementioned amount in violation of direction of the complainant; that there was specific allegation against the petitioners that they committed forgery in the record of Javaid Rice Mills and prepared fake receipts; that both the petitioners admitted misappropriation of aforementioned amount before the P.Ws and returned an amount of Rs, 12,60,000/- to complainant; that petitioners misappropriated a huge amount of Rs, 57,40,000/- and from the contents of FIR offences alleged against the petitioner are fully attracted against them, therefore, petitioners were not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is submitted that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care.
6. Petitioners are nominated in the FIR. There was specific allegation against the petitioners that an amount of Rs, 1,23,00,000/-was paid to them by the complainant for the purpose of purchase of raw rice being agents of the complainant. Both the petitioners assured the complainant that according to his direction they had purchased raw rice amounting to Rs,70,00000/- and they had stocked the same at Javaid Rice Mills Arifwala Road, Sahiwal and Taj Rice Mills Pakpattan Road Sahiwal, According to allegations when complainant directed the petitioners to sale raw rice which had been stocked by them at Javaid Rice Mills, the petitioners showed their reluctance on one pretext or the other. There was specific allegation against both the petitioners that when raw rice was checked by the complainant at Javaid Rice Mills, it transpired that petitioners did not purchase the raw rice amounting to Rs, 70-lacs, rather, they misappropriated the aforementioned amount.
7. There was specific allegation against the petitioners that they made forged entries in the record of Javaid Rice Mills and prepared forged receipts. During investigation, police recorded the statements of Malik Muhammad Sarwar proprietor Javaid Rice Mills and Aamir Butt clerk posted at aforesaid Mill who supported the prosecution version as narrated in the FIR. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot looked into at bail stage as only tentative assessment is permissible at this stage. Petitioners are neither clerks nor servants of the complainant, therefore, offence under Section 408, PPC would not be attracted against them but there was specific allegation against both the petitioners that they committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated an amount of Rs, 70-lacs belonging to complainant, therefore, offence under Section 406, PPC would be attracted against the petitioners.
There was specific allegation against the petitioners that they committed forgery in the record of Javaid Rice Mills and prepared forged receipts, therefore, prima facie, the offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471, PPC would also be attracted against them. The alleged forged documents are yet to be recovered from the possession of the petitioners. During investigation, both the petitioners were found guilty by the local police. The petitioners were also found guilty in inquiry conducted by S.P Regional Investigation Branch Sahiwal. No mala fides have been urged by the petitioners on the basis of which they have falsely been roped in this case which is pre-requisite for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
8. For what has been discussed above, I find no ground for accepting this petition, therefore, this petition stands dismissed. Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2011 is recalled.