This is 2nd petition filed by the petitioners before this Court in terms of Sections 497/498, Cr.P.C., seeking their pre- arrest bail in case FIR No. C-965/2016, dated 07.11.2016, offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 34, 109, PPC, read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered with Police Station FIA, Gujranwala The earlier one on the subject bearing Crl. Misc. No. 17359-B/2016 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2017.
2. Prosecution story in brief, as per conte nts of the crime report, is that one Haji Riasat Ali Bhatti, lodged the FIR thereby contending that he was maintaining his accounts at Soneri Bank Limited, G.T. Road Branch, Gujranwala and Summit Bank G.T. Road Branch, Gujranwala. In the year 2015-16, the complainant handed over nine cheques total amounting to Rs. 47,00,000/- to accused Umair Ahmed, however , instead of depositing it in the accounts of the complainant, said accused deposited it in the accounts of his relatives and subsequently the amount was withdrawn. The complainant alleged that principal accused was facilitated by the present petitioners and others.
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners contends that earlier similar petition of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn as the Investigating Officer had found both the petitioners not connected with the crime alleged, hence the instant petition is maintainable in its present form. Further contends that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been involved in the instant case by the complainant with mala fide intention although they have no concern whatsoever with the accusations contained in the crime report. It has been next argued that even according to prosecution own version the petitioners are not the beneficiaries of the alleged embezzlement.
Learned counsel contends that there is no forensic report available on record in this regard. It has been vigorously argued that co-accused Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zubair , who are beneficiaries of the alleged embezzlement have been admitted to bail by august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed in Crl. Petition No. 327-L/2017, therefore, by sending the petitioners no useful purpose would be served.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Attorney General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the contentions raised by learne d counsel for the petitioners. It has been argued that the petitioners have been duly named in the crime report, who are involved in embezzlement of Rs. 47,00,000/-. Learned Law Officer, however , concedes that co-accused Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zubair , who are beneficiary of the scam have been admitted to bail by august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on file.
6. Although this is 2nd pre-arrest bail petition filed, by the petitioners before this Court, however , perusal of record Available on reflects that earlier similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 17359-B/20 16 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2017 on the statement of the Investigating Officer that the petitioners are not connected with the crime, hence, the same is maintainable in its present form. As far as accu sations, in the crime report are concerned, admittedly the petitioners are named in the crime report, however , according to prosecution own version the cheques amounting to Rs. 47,00,000/- were deposited by the complainant with Umair Javed co- accused. Moreover , it is not the prosecution case that the petitioners gained any monetary benefit out of the alleged embezzlement. Fact also remains that there is no forensic report available on record in order to establish that the petitioners are connected with the occurrence. During the course of arguments the Court was apprised that Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zubair co-accused who are beneficiaries of the alleged embezzlement have been admitted to post-arrest bail by august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated. 05.05.2017 passed in Crl.
Petition No. 327-L/2017, which remained un-rebutted by the other side.
7. Although it is a pre-arrest bail matter , however , this Court beyond the scope of safe administration of justice. The parameters of feels itself under bounden duty to ensure that no one is dealt with pre-arrest bail have already been widened by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan while elaborating the same in a salutary judgment reported as Meeran Bux vs. The State and another (PLJ 1989 SC 526); wherein it was held that while dealing with pre-arrest bail matters, even merits of the case can be touclled upon. Needless to mention that liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been guaranteed by the Constitution and the same cannot be curtailed on the basis of bald allegations.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we have been persuaded to hold that by sending the petitioners behind the bars no useful purpose would be served. Resultantly , while allowing this petition ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 01.10.2018 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.