Maqbool Ahmed, petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No, 219 dated 05.04.2007 offence under Section 406, PPC registered at Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan. Precise story as stated in the FIR is that a calf was handed over to one Muhammad Aslam on Superdari by the order of learned Magistrate, Liaqatpur. Having apprehension of misappropriation, the said calf was handed over to Abdul Qadir but both the accused committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that as per contents of the FIR, the calf was never handed over to the petitioner and the same was handed over to Muhammad Aslam Lumberdar and Abdul Qadir and both of them have been allowed bail before arrest by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan on 16.04.2007; that the petitioner earlier filed a petition before this Court bearing Crl. Misc. No, 938-B/2007 and the police officer, who was present before the Court, stated that the petitioner has been declared innocent during investigation, therefore, that petition was disposed of as having been withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2007 and now the police, with mala fide intention wants to arrest the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the Superdar, opposes this bail petition on the grounds that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but he committed misappropriation in connivance with his co-accused; that the provisions of Section 406, PPC are fully attracted in this case and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. However, the learned DPG confirms that Muhammad Aslam Lumberdar and Abdul Qadir, co-accused were allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. As per narration of the FIR, the calf was never handed over to the petitioner and the same was handed over to -Muhammad Aslam Lumberdar and Abdul Qadir and both of them as confirmed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, have been allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which order has not been challenged by the complainant. Earlier petition filed by the petitioner bearing Crl. Misc. No, 938-B of 2007 was disposed of as having been withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2007, as the police officer, who was present before the Court, stated that the petitioner has been declared innocent during the course of investigation. In the circumstances, mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. This petition is, therefore, allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 25.05.2012, is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.