' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest' bail in case F.I.R. No,2 of 2010, dated 23-1- 2010, offence under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered with Police Station, ACE, Sialkot.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, as contained in the crime report is that one Muhammad Boota grabbed Rs,900,000 from the complainant to settle him at London and during his stay in U.K. He procured thumb-impression of the complainant on some blank paper under the pretext of giving him pay, but got prepared forged general power of attorney on behalf of the complainant in favour of his son Nisar Ahmad, who subsequently got transferred the land of the complainant measuring 10 kanals in the name of his wife Kubra Bibi on the basis of said general power of attorney in league with the officials of the Revenue Department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicted in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with mala fides. It is argued that there is delay of three years in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is argued that the petitioner has performed his legal duties as DDO (R) Sambrial at the relevant time, under the Land Revenue Act as well as Registration Act and there is no allegation of receipt of even a single penny against the petitioner. Adds that during the departmental inquiry the petitioner was found innocent and even the authority recommended for droppage of the inquiry. It is argued that the petitioner being government servant, there is no chance of his absconsion in case he is admitted to pre-arrest bail.
In such circumstances, especially when nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition,
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed this petition. It is contended that due to role of the petitioner played by him while working as DDO (R), the complainant has been deprived from his landed property measuring 10 kanals. It is argued that earlier the petitioner filed pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court on 13-6-2012, which remained pending there for as long as six months and thereafter the petitioner left the country without any information, which resulted into dismissal of his petition and subsequently the petitioner's second pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned trial Court on merits in terms of order dated 28-11-'20l2. It is contended that the petitioner was found guilty during the course of investigation. Moreover, it is a pre-arrest bail and the same can be granted sparingly.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is involved in the instant case wherein the complainant has been defrauded/deprived from his valuable landed property. When confronted, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General frankly submits that the complainant has been deprived from his valuable landed property measuring ten kanals by the accused persons with connivance of the petitioner, who was working as DDO (R) Sambrial at the relevant time. The first pre-arrest bail of the petitioner remained pending before the learned trial Court for as long as six months which ultimately was dismissed due to his non-appearance before the learned trial Court as he left the country without any information and subsequently the petitioner filed his second pre-arrest bail before the same learned court, which stood dismissed on merits in terms of order dated 28-11-2012. The conduct of the petitioner qua filing pre-arrests bail petitions before the learned trial Court and subsequently absenting himself from the courts speaks volumes qua his conduct towards the courts of law, which amounts to abuse of process of Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the reported case of "Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State" (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 93), wherein august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:-- ' ----Ss. 497(1) & 498---Bail----Fact of petitioner having absconded prima facie established---- Absconsion being of such period and type as to disentitle petitioner to concession of bail whether case falls within prohibitory or other filed of subsection (1) of S. 497 read with S. 498----Conduct of petitioner by making repeated application for anticipatory bail, trying to gain advantage thereunder and then absenting for period of time, held, amounted to abuse of process of Court and disentitled petitioner to discretionary relief of bail----Petitioner's case, even on merits, held further, not fit for grant of bail---(Abscondence---- Abuse of process of Court)
' During the course of investigation, the petitioner was found guilty. This is a pre-arrest bail and the same can be granted sparingly. The primary object of pre-arrest bail is to save the innocent persons from the apprehension of being arrested for a tainted purpose. Relief of pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was based on enmity/mala fides or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of the record, but position in the case in hand is otherwise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Azam v. The State (1996 SCM R 71), wherein it has been held as under:-- ' ---S.498----Pre-arrest bail----Right of pre-arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fides/enmity or where no offence is shown to have been committed on the bare reading of F.I.R.".
' Moreover, in the case of Muhammad Arshad and another v. The State and another (1996 5CMR 74), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-- ' "----S.498---Pre-arrest bail---Relief of pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was based on enmity/mala fides or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of the record".
' Similar view was affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another' (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
' When confronted learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to point out any mala fides/malice on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case in hand.
In such circumstances, the petitioner-has failed to make out a good case for grant of relief prayed for by means of instant petition. Resultantly, the petition in hand having no force is hereby dismissed.