Facts necessary for decision of the above mentioned bail petitions are that state land measuring 89 Kanals and 19 Marlas in Khasra Nos.92, 183, 184, 187, 188, 198, 199, 200, 213, 214 and 362 in Mouza Rakh Sultan Kay near Balawal House, Bahria Town, Lahore was mutated in favour of Mansoor Iqbal, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Arshad, petitioners, vide mutation No.141 dated 22.04.2015 on the basis of a bogus sale deed No.3293/1/3318 dated 10.05.1990 without verification of sale deed and prior approval of the competent authority.
2. The District Coordination Officer, Lahore being ex-officio Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment enquired into the matter and recommended registration of the FIR against the persons involved therein. Resultantly case FIR No.64/2015 dated 14.05.2015 under sections 420/468/ 471/ 409/109/218 /166 PPC and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered at Police Station ACE, Lahore.
3. Having given profound consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that in this case, allegedly serious fraud has been committed by the petitioners regarding 89 Kanals and 19 Marlas of land situated in Bahria Town, Lahore by preparing a bogus sale deed. Such kind of crimes are called 'white collar/organized crimes'. They are totally different in nature from common crimes that take place in the society.
White collar crimes has recently been the focus of much attention. One reason for this interest is the substantial increase in this kind of criminal activity and the staggering costs it imposes on society. Significantly, because white collar crime uses the institutions and techniques of legitimate financial and commercial activities, it is difficult to initially detect, investigate such crime. Presently, the most generally accepted definitions emphasize that deceit and guile are basis of the white collar crime. The deception and guile are indeed sine qua non of such crime. This appears in the ability to hide the illegality in apparently legitimate transactions or statements. Non-violence is part of this ability, as is the premeditation inherent in this type of crime. It is the crime, which involves use of the economic system in general, and financial and public institutions in particular.
In such cases primary instrument for commission of crime is preparation of false documents.
These crimes having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously as grave offences affecting nation as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. It also means that the primary way in which illegal transactions differ from legal ones is not in their substance and appearance but in their purpose and intent. Victims, a standard source of criminal complaints, often do not know that they have been victimized or learnt about it well after the victimization has been accomplished. The victims are ignorant of crime and the culpable participants all have too much to gain. The question of purpose and intent is the centre of a transaction because it makes the difference between a legitimate transaction and an illegal one. It is also true that direct evidence of intent is very rare and intent to defraud, for example, must be inferred from a series of seemingly isolated acts and instances. The boundaries of the crime are indistinct and the material used to prove it can go far afield.
4. These crimes are committed by men who have been assigned to perform the role of custodian by the Sate or by those given task to regulate the conduct of business. There is no eye-witness and instead the proof is more likely to depend upon circumstantial evidence culled from a complex paper trail. However, the prosecution has to prove the knowledge of the accused apart from proving mens rea.
5. This case can be regarded as one of heinous nature as it not only involves huge sum of money but such offences, if proven, are against the interest of society. In such circumstances, bail even can be denied in bailable offences. Reliance is placed on the case of Imtiaz Ahmad vs. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545), which reads at page 552 as under:- "7. I may observe that distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail. Similarly, a distinction is to be kept in mind between an offence committed by an individual in his private capacity and an offence committed by a public functionary in respect of or in connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail.
In the former cases, the practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the absence of an exceptional circumstance may be followed, but in the latter category, the Courts should be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In my view, the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be treated falling within an exceptional circumstance of the nature warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years' R.I. For the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence involved.
The Courts should not be oblivious of the fact that at present Pakistan is confronted with many serious problems/difficulties of national and international magnitude, which cannot be resolved unless the whole Pakistani nation as united entity makes efforts. The desire to amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. The people commit offences detrimental to the society and the country for money. Some of the holders of the public office commit or facilitate commission of offences for monetary consideration. In the above scenario the Courts' approach should be reformation-oriented with the desire to suppress the above mischieves. To achieve the above objective, it is imperative that the Courts should apply strictly the laws which are designed and intended to eradicate the above national evils but at the same time, they are duty bound to ensure that the above approach should not result in miscarriage of justice. It should not be overlooked that Article 9 of our Constitution, which relates to a fundamental right, guarantees life and liberty of every person. Life, inter alia, includes the right to have access to a fair and independent judicial forum for redress. A balance is to be struck between national and individual interest/right."
6. The material/circumstances of this case suggest interaction/pre-meditation amongst the petitioners which is supported by their cellular phone data, statements of the prosecution witnesses showing their participation in the titled crimes strengthened by recoveries effected at their instance or at the instance of their co-accused. The petitioners excluding the private persons, at the relevant time, were public servants. Each one of them played a specific role in preparing the forged documents, all ostensibly under a premeditation. They thereby facilitated the beneficiaries to obtain pecuniary advantage. The acts were against the public interest. On the contrary, the public loss and suffering occasioned thereby was immeasurable. Though it is true, as has been argued, that the mutation was cancelled and no actual loss was occasioned thereby to the State but it must not be forgotten that crimes affect the whole society even though they may not have any immediate victims. During the course of investigation, section 467 PPC has also been added which is punishable with imprisonment for life and attracts the prohibition contained under section 497 Cr.P.C.
The petitioners including Mansoor Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan also failed to establish malafide either on the part of the police or the complainant for their false involvement in this case.
7. Considering in totality the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail or confirmation of bail. Accordingly, all the petitions are hereby dismissed. The interim pre-arrest bail earlier allowed to Mansoor Iqbal petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.9709-B/2015 and Muhammad Ramzan petitioner in Crl. Misc.
No.7935- B/2015, is hereby recalled.
8. It is clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and the learned trial court shall not be influenced thereby, in any manner, at the time of trial.