' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Zahid petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No, 883 of 2010, dated 25-8-2010 registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore in respect of offences under sections 420/ 468/471/154, P.P.C. Read with section 141, of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been involved in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. The story narrated in the F.I.R. Is totally false, baseless and concocted. The petitioner has got no concern or connection with the commission of alleged offence. The complainant has involved the present petitioner in order to harass, humiliate and blackmail him and also to extract huge amount from him. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him.
Number of respectable appeared before the investigating officer in the defence of the present petitioner and they have also sworn affidavit. The present petitioner is a respectable person and he has nothing to do with the occurrence. There is no admissible piece of evidence against the petitioner on the file of this case and now the complainant is deliberately avoiding to appear before the investigating officer and in this Court. The offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable whereas the offences under sections 468/154/141, P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage as he is innocent. The petitioner is a businessman, if arrested would be humiliated.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after going through the record contends that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And specific role is attributed to him. He is the man who is extracting money from the innocent people posing himself to be the contractor under the Local Government and was issuing bogus parking slips. Recoveries of bogus slips is yet to be effected from him. There is sufficient material against the present petitioner on the file of this case.
There is absolutely no malice on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The statement of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C., including the two co- accused of the petitioner are on record who are fully involving the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found involved by the investigating officer. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which is meant for innocent person but the petitioner has been found involved in this case so he is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court. The offence with which the petitioner is charged are non- bailable. The person of the petitioner is required by the police for investigation.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is a property dealer who is running his business at Al-Latif Centre, Gulberg, Lahore. Admittedly there is no allegation against the present petitioner that he himself received parking fee from the vehicle owners, The investigating officer 'has taken into possession the alleged parking fee slips from co-accused namely Nadeem Masih and Waseem Masih, etc. And the name of the present petitioner or his company does not figure on the alleged parking slips recovered from his co-accused. During the investigation number of persons have appeared before the investigating officer and tendered their affidavits in defence of the present petitioner that he has nothing to do with the offence in question. Even otherwise it has also been noticed that the present petitioner has been roped in this case on the statement of co-accused namely Nadeem Masih and Waseem Masih and it is settled law that statement of an accused is not admissible in evidence against his co-accused. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is previous non-convict, thus, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind C the bars at this stage.
5. Before proceeding further in this matter I would like to express here that ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can be repaired by the wrong caused in shape of mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case if he is acquitted in the long run. Even otherwise the prosecution has ample opportunity to prove its case at the time of trial. Moreover sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable whereas sections 468/154, P.P.C. And section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' 5(sic) For what has been discussed above this petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 21-12-2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.