ORDER MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. - This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 8347/B/2012 (Muhammad Naeem v. The State), Crl. Misc. No. 8761- B/2012 (Hamid Ali etc. v. The State) and Crl.
Misc. No. 10436-B/2012 (Muhammad Arshad v. The State), as all these three bail before arrest petitions arise out of the same case F.I.R. No. 231/12, dated 5.5.2012, under Section 406, P.P.C., Police Station City Jhang, District Jhang. The precise allegation against the petitioners and their co- accused is that the complainant was an Imam Masjid having good relations with Mubarik Ali, a co- accused of the petitioners and the said Mubarik Ali took Rs. 4,50,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of investment in the cloth business and to give profit to the complainant but thereafter misappropriated the same.
2. While seeking bail before arrest of the petitioners, their learned counsel contends that there is a delay of about six years in reporting the matter to the police; that the petitioners have been involved in this case due to mala fide of the complainant and the local police; that the complainant has himself admitted in the F.I.R, that he gave the amount in question to petitioners' co-accused Mubarik Ali and not the petitioners, therefore, provisions of Section 406, P.P.C, are not attracted to the extent of the petitioners in this case and petitioners are entitled to the bail before arrest.
3. On the other hand, while opposing all these three bail petitions, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioners in all the three bail petitions are named in the F.I.R, with a specific allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- belonged to the complainant; that the petitioners have not been able to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant for their false implication in this case; that the recovery of misappropriated money of the complainant is yet to be affected from the petitioners; that the provisions of Section 406, P.P.C, are fully attracted in the circumstances of the case and die petitioners are not entitled to the extraordinary concession of bail before arrest from this Court. However, the learned DPG, after going through the police record and under instructions from the ASI present in Court, has conceded that die Investigating Officer has concluded during investigation that the direct allegation of taking money from the complainant is against Mubarik Ali co-accused and not the petitioners and nothing has come on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged misappropriation.
4. Arguments Heard. Perusal of the F.I.R, shows that the complainant gave an amount of Rs.
4,50,000/- to a co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Mubarik Ali and there is no direct allegation against the petitioners qua taking of money from the complainant. The learned Law Officer, under instructions from the ASI present in Court and after going through the police file, has conceded that the police has concluded during the investigation that the direct allegation of taking money from the complainant is against Mubarik Ali (co-accused). In this view of the matter, all the three bail before arrest petitions filed by the petitioners i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 8347-B/2012 (Muhammad Naeem v.
The State), Crl. Misc. No. 8761-B/2012 (Hamid Ali etc. v. The State) and .Crl. Misc. No. 10436-B/2012 (Muhammad Arshad v. The State), are allowed and their bail before arrest is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.