1. ' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Applicant/accused seeks bail before arrest in Crime No,57 of 2011, registered at Police Station F.I.A. Commercial Bank Circle Karachi, under section 420, P.P.C. r/w section 5(2) of PC Act of 1947.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that consequent upon the Enquiry No,95 of 2010 of F.I.A. CBC Karachi initiated under the order of competent authority on the basis of joint complaint dated 5-5-2010 filed by Mr. Siddique Paul son of Sardar and Mrs. Parveen Akhter daughter of Sardar Maseeh resident of Karachi, it transpired that in the year of 2007 applicant/accused Khadim Hussain F. Palh while he was posted as Assistant Vice-President of Allied Bank Limited Abdullah Haroon Road Branch Karachi, with intent to cheat/defraud the complainants had persuaded them to invest an amount in the Bank for handsome profit. It is alleged that applicant/accused Khadim Hussain F. Palh AVP/ABL had received Rs,10,00,000 and Rs,14,00,000 from the complainant Siddique Paul & Mrs. Parveen Akhtar respectively and issued two separate receipts on letter pad of ABL under his signature dated 8-2-2007. Copies of the receipts have been placed on record. It is further alleged that applicant/accused Khadim Hussain later on failed to fulfil the commitment and issued bogus cheques to the complainant of his own Accounts No,0111802458 ABL Trade Tower Branch Karachi of different dates, which were bounced/dishonoured by the Bank on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter complainants lodged Nos.13/2010 and 21/2010, under section 489-F. P.P.C. At Police Station Artillery Maidan Karachi against applicant/accused Khadim Hussain F. Palh. It is further stated that applicant/ accused being AVP/ABL had cheated complainant by misusing his official position and introduced incentives for handsome profit on investment and extorted huge finances from the complainants.
3. F.I.R. Was lodged under the above referred sections.
4. ' Applicant/accused while apprehending his arrest filed bail before arrest application. Ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant/accused in Crime No, 57 of 2011 vide order dated 19- 12-2007.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Salam Memon, learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that prosecution story is highly unbelievable. There is no material to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence. F.I.A. Had no jurisdiction to initiate investigation against the applicant/accused. Section 420 P.P.C. Is bailable and provisions of section 5(2) of PC Act of 1947 is not applicable to the case of applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that complainants have filed summary suits, which are pending before the competent Court of law. Lastly it is argued that applicant/accused is neither hardened nor desperate criminal and there is no documentary evidence against him to connect him in this case.
6. ' Mr. Dilawar Hussain, D.A.G. Has argued that prosecution has collected sufficient material against the applicant/ accused to connect him in the commission of the offence. He has referred to the receipts dated 8-2-2007 issued by applicant/ accused on official pad in favour of complainant Mr. Siddique Paul and Mrs. Parveen Akhter. He has further submitted that cheques were also issued by the applicant/accused in favour of complainants and the same were dishonoured. He has further argued that criminal proceedings are independent from the civil proceedings and applicant/accused has committed fraud by using official capacity. Lastly he has argued that applicant/accused after grant of ad interim bail did not join investigation and no mala fide in the part of F.I.A. Has been specifically alleged by applicant/accused. He has seriously opposed the application.
7. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the contents of the F.I.R. No,57 of 2011, two receipts dated 8-2-2007 issued by applicant/accused in favour of the complainant and other material available on record.
8. Prima facie, there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of offence for the reasons that applicant/ accused was working as AVP of ABL and with intent to cheat/defraud the complainants he persuaded them to invest amount in the Bank on the better profit and received Rs,10,00,000 and Rs,14,00,000 from. Siddique Paul and Mrs. Parveen Akhter respectively and issued receipts on letter pad of ABL under his signature. Applicant 4 accused could not fulfil the commitments, he issued bogus cheques of his account and the same were dishonoured and F.I.R. Nos.13 of 2010 and 21 of 2010, registered at Artillery Maidan, under Section 489-F P.P.C., were lodged against him. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief, which is to be granted in exceptional circumstances. Concession of the interim pre-arrest was granted to the applicant/ accused, but he did not join the investigation. For grant of pre-arrest bail applicant/accused was required to satisfy the Court regarding mala fides on the part of complainant and investigating agency. No mala fide or ulterior motive has been pointed out.
9. ' Right of pre-arrest bail is limited to the exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fides.
10. In order to make out a case of anticipatory bail following conditions are to be satisfied:--
(i) Arrest being for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment;
(ii) Prosecution motivated to cause irreparable injury to reputation and liberty; and
(iii) Motivation of police on political consideration/victimization.
11. ' In the case of Malik Aqeel v. The State (2011 SCM R 170) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:--
4. Keeping in view such submission of the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the whole .Material placed on record and seen that, prima facie, ample evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the present petitioner with the commission of such offence. Needless to observe that deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not warranted by law; moreso, in a case where no mala fide has been attributed either to the complainant or the Investigating Officer for false implication of the petitioner in the crime.
5. This being the position, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.
12. For the above stated reasons, while relying upon the above cited judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, we hold that prima facie there is sufficient material to connect applicant/accused in the commission of the offence. No case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Resultantly, instant bail before arrest application is rejected. Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/ accused vide order dated 19-12-2011 is hereby recalled.