ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.--- This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 6740-B/2015 titled "Margoobul-Hassan v. The State etc." and Crl. Misc. No,6664-B/2015 titled "Safdar Ali Qureshi v.
The State" as both are outcome of one FIR.
2. Through Crl. Misc. No,6740-B/15, Marghoob-ul-Hassan and through Cr!. Misc. No, 6664-B/15, Safdar Ali Qureshi petitioners seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No,343/2013 dated 15.05.2013 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 419, 170, 171, P.P.C. Read with sections 5(2)47 P.C.A., at Police Station Chehliak, District Multan.
3. The allegation against the petitioners, as per FIR, is that they in connivance with their co-accused prepared fake appointment letters/transfer letters and other documents and by using the same caused huge loss to the government exchequer, hence this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been roped in this case falsely as they have not committed any offence; that there are two FIRs regarding same offence. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that transfer orders of fake constables were issued from the office of IGP Punjab Lahore addressed to CPO Office Multan whereby fake constables were shown transferred and placed at strength of Multan where they served for sufficient period and then transferred to other districts. Learned counsel contended that firstly transfer orders were issued under the signatures of DIGs of Punjab Police, which were not denied till today and gven if those were wrong then criminal liability might be fixed on officials, who prepared those fake documents; that petitioner Safdar Ali Qureshi has been exonerated by the inquiry officer/AIG RPO Office, Multan vide report dated 26.08.2014; that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence. Further argued that co-accused of the petitioners have already been granted bail by this court, therefore, petitioners are also entitled for the same relief under rule of consistency; that petitioners are previously non-convict and non- record holder. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for acceptance of bails in favour of the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned DPG has vehemently opposed both bail applications on the ground that the petitioners with connivance of their accomplices prepared fake documents and got inducted bogus persons in police department. Further argued that in this regard, another case FIR No,521/15 dated 01.10.2015 at Police Station old Anar-Kali Lahore against other accused persons has been registered. Learned DPG also contended that in fresh inquiry conducted by Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan, petitioners have been declared guilty, therefore, they are not entitled for concession of bail and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned DPG and perused the record carefully.
7. Admittedly, petitioner Marghoobul-Hassan is Senior Clerk in DPO Office Khanewal whereas petitioner Safdar Ali Qureshi is Pay Clerk Accounts Branch, CPO Office Multan. As per FIR they in collusion of their co-accused, after preparing bogus documents, inducted fake constables in police department. It is argued that present petitioners are entitled for same relief that already extended in favour of co-accused. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel is misconceived in the present situation when under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, Inspector General of Police after thorough probe submitted report and got lodged FIR at Police Station Old Anarkali Lahore, earlier relief of bail was granted on the basis of re-in statement of the fake police employees by this Court, but now the scenario has been change as C.P.L.A. No,1421 of 2015 has been filed against the order of this Court, though reportedly no injunctive order has been passed by this Hon'ble Supreme Court therein, yet the matter has been thrashed out properly and report of detailed inquiry dated 12.09.2015 conducted by ACE Multan is available on record, in which petitioners have been declared guilty. The relevant portion of inquiry report conducted in case FIR No,343/13 is reproduced as below:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for relief under rule of consistency.
8. For what has been discussed above, petitioners have failed to make out their case of extra ordinary relief. Therefore, both these bail applications are dismissed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby recalled.
9. The observations referred above are only of tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial of the case of either party at trial.