SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN, J.---The captioned revision petitions have been directed against the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Corruption, on 20.02.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.10.2021, 20.11.2021, 09.12.2021 and 15.12.2021 whereby the post-arrest bail of the accused-petitioners was rejected.
2. As common question of facts and law is involved in the instant cases, therefore, I propose to decide the same through this single order.
3. There are similar facts of Revision Petitions Nos.127/21 and 253/21 in which the matter in issue is that on 16.03.2020 applicant. Muhammad 'Shabbir submitted an application before Sub- Registrar/Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, stating therein that scribe writer Kamran Chohan cheated with him and got executed fake sale-deed along with copy of the said sale-deed on which the officer concerned sought report from registration clerk and in response thereof, it has been reported that the said sale-deed is nowhere mentioned in record whereupon an FIR was lodged against him. On 24.06.2020, Shoukat Hussain, Advocate, filed an application for obtaining certified copy of sale- deed titled Mirza Mehfooz Iqbal etc. v. Shoukat Hussain dated 11.12.2017 on which it has been reported by record keeper that the said sale-deed is not available in record. On very next day, Shoukat Hussain, Advocate, presented certified copy, of sale-deed and stated that he obtained the same on which the record keeper was summoned who appeared and stated that the register pertaining to sale-deeds has been provided by Ikram-ul-Hassan today i.e. 25.06.2020, which was perused and it transpired that near about 50 fake entries of sale-deeds have been made rather the said register was prepared after the arrest of Kamran Chohan scribe writer on which the officer concerned submitted written report to Police Station Anti-corruption, Muzaffarabad. On this report an FIR Illat No. 03/2020, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Muzaffarabad, on 18.08.2020 in offences under sections 465/466, 467/468, 471/409, 419/420 A.P.C. 5(2) P.C.A. During investigation, it has been disclosed that accused-petitioners, Muhammad Iqbal and others, are involved in making fake and fabricated documents and thereafter, they were arrested who submitted their separate applications before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption for post arrest bail, which were rejected vide impugned orders dated 14.07.2021 and 30.10.2021, hence, these revision petitions.
4. In Petition No.254/21, the accused-petitioners sought annulment of impugned order dated 14.07.2021 on the ground that an FIR No.02/2020 in offences under sections 419/420, 465, 466, 109, 471, 409, 170, A.P.C. 5(2) P.C.A. was wrongly registered against the petitioners on written report of Shoukat Hussain, Advocate, at Police Station Anti-corruption, Muzaffarabad, on 03.08.2020. Both accused-petitioners were apprehended by police who submitted separate applications for grant of post arrest bails before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, which were rejected through single order dated 14.07.2021, hence, this revision petition.
5. Facts of the case in Revision Petition No.64-A/21, are that on instigation of Sub-Registrar/Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, an FIR Illat Nos.194/2020 was registered in offences under sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 170, A.P.C. and accused-petitioners were apprehended who submitted application on 01.02.2021 for bail after arrest, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 20.02.2021, hence, this revision petition.
6. The precise facts of Revision Petition No.06/22 are that complainant, Khawaja Mansoor Ahmed, got lodged an FIR illat No.06/2021 against the accused-petitioner along with other three co- accused and. the contents of the said FIR need not to narrate here in detail because the same has sufficiently been incorporated in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The main allegation attributed to the accused-petitioner is that he along with co-accused got registered forged power of attorney on 31.01.2020. On this report, an FIR illat No.06/2021 in offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 A.P.C. and 5(2), P.C.A. was registered on 09.06.2021. The accused-petitioner was apprehended by the Police who filed an application for bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur on 07.12.2021, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021, hence, this petition.
7. Detailed facts pertaining to FIR illat No.03/20 registered in offences under sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109, 419, 420, 34, A.P.C. 5(2), P.C.A. on 18.08.2020 incorporated, in Petition No.253/21 are the subject matter of Revision Petition No.07/22, which have already been incorporated in pre-paras, hence, here is no need to reiterate here in detail. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2020 in offences - mentioned above who submitted an application before Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, for post arrest bail on 04.12.2021, which after hearing was turned down vide impugned order dated 09.12.2021, hence, this petition.
8. Facts of Revision Petition No.19/22 are that an FIR illat No.02/21 registered against the accused- petitioner on written report of Abdul Aziz Mughal at Pol Station Anti-corruption, Muzaffarabad, in offences under sections 419/420, 465, 466, 109, 471, A.P.C. 5(2), P.C.A. on 20.02.2021 in which he, being author, was alleged to have prepared fake documents. The accused-petitioner was arrested and thereafter, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, on 20.09.2021, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 20.11.2020, hence, this petition.
9. Detailed facts incorporated in Petition No.253/20 pertaining to FIR illat No.03/20 are the subject matter of FIR No.194/20 matter in issue of this Revision Petition No.255/21. As detailed facts have been incorporated in pre-paras, hence, there is no need to reiterate here in detail. The accused- petitioners were arrested who submitted their separate applications before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, for bail after arrest, which were rejected through single order dated 14.07.2021, hence, this revision petition.
10. Facts as incorporated in Petition No.19/22 pertaining to FIR illat No.02/21 registered in offences under sections 420, 419, 460, 465, 468, 467, 109, 471, A.P.C. 5(2), P.C.A. against the accused-petitioner in which he was alleged to have embezzled a huge amount of Rs.12 Lac. by making fake, documents. After arrest, the accused-petitioner submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge / Judge Anti-corruption on 22.06.2021, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.07.2021, hence, this revision petition.
11. Facts of case No.257/21 are that on written report of Inspector, Imran Ahmed, Police Station Anti- corruption a case No.04/21 was registered against the accused-petitioner in offences under sections 420, 419, 460, 465, 467, 109, 471, A.P.C. 5(2), P.C.A. stating therein that during the investigation case illat No. 194/20 the accused-petitioner disclosed that he in collusion with Hafiz Nazeer who is Rtd. employee of Municipal Corporation, Mirpur, transferred Plot Nos.509 and 510 on the basis of fake power of attorney and the same was transferred in favour of Muhammad Iqbal.
Accused-petitioner has filed application for bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge/ Judge Anti-corruption Mirpur on 22.06.2021 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.07,2021, hence this revision petition.
12. Facts of case No.258/21 are that on written report of Inspector, Imran Ahmed, Police Station Anti- corruption a case No.01/21 was registered against the accused-petitioner in offences under sections 420, 419, 460, 465, 466, 109, 171, A.P.C. 5(2), P.C.A. stating therein that during the investigation of case illat No.194/20 the accused-petitioner disclosed that he in collision with Hafiz Nazeer who is ex-serviceman of Municipal Corporation Mirpur transferred Plot No. 163 situated in Sector F-3 Part-II measuring 5 Marlas on the basis of forged power of attorney and the same was transferred in favour of Mehmood Akram in lieu of Rs.57,00,000/-. Accused-petitioner has filed an application for bail after arrest before the learned. Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, on 22.06.2021 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.07.2021, hence this revision petition.
13. Arguments heard. Record perused.
14. A cursory perusal of record shows that in all the above mentioned cases, the investigating agency after completion of investigation, submitted reports under section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the competent Court of law while the accused-petitioners filed different applications, for bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, which were turned down vide impugned orders dated 20.02.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.10.2021, 20.11.2021, 09.12.2021 and 15.12.2021.
15. In the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar, I have perused the record available on file with great care. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention here that at the bail stage, it is neither proper nor permissible for the Court to dive deep into the Merits of the case rather only tentative assessment of material collected by the investigating agency has to be made. Keeping in view the principle, I would like to attend the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases against their clients fall within the ambit of further inquiry as enshrined in subsection (2) of section 497 of Cr.P.C. So, this proposition requires to be answered. A plain reading of section 497 of Cr.P.C. shows that no Court is empowered to release an accused on bail on the ground of further inquiry without first coming to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has not committed non-bailable offence, hence, for making the case of further inquiry, there is no heard and fast rule because each case will turn on its own peculiar" facts and circumstances. Similar proposition has been resolved in case titled Ghulam Abbas v. State [2005 PCr.LJ 244] whereby it has been opined as under:- "Section 497(2), Cr. P. C. provides that if it appears to the Court at any stage that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient ground for further inquiry into his guilt, such accused shall be released on bail. No what will constitute as sufficient grounds for further inquiry, would depend upon peculiar facts of each case and no heard and last rule can be laid down for that purpose. Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial Court subsequently, after evaluation of the evidence. The condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. is that there are sufficient ground for further inquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged."
Reliance can be placed on a case reported as' Parveen Akhtar v. State [2002 SCMR 1886] in which it has been observed as under:- "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, which has been made available for our inspection by learned Assistant Advocate-General. It may be noted that as per the statement of P.W. Amir who received injuries during the incident, it was Shezad who had fired upon Asghar Hayat Constable. Besides, in. the FIR Shehzad was named as an accused and responsible for commission of the offence. Undoubtedly, in such-like cases, it is said that accused has made out a case of further inquiry. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Asmatullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another PLD 1988 SC 621 merely for such reason accused would not be entitled for grant of bail because mere possibility of further inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case, is no ground for treating the matter as one under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. After having gone through the statement of P.W. Amir and taking into consideration the material on record, we are of the opinion that respondent No.2 was not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry because there is overwhelming evidence against him to prima facie connect him while granting bail to respondent No.2 had not exercised its jurisdiction properly keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Asmatuallh Khan (ibid)."
Likewise, in a case reported as Hazurdad v. Sajid Khan [1998 PCr.LJ 633], following dictum has been laid down:-- "(7) It is now well-settled that a case would only fall, within the scope of further inquiry, under section 497, Cr.P.C., if the Court reaches a conclusion that on the material before it there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years.. In other words, in the absence of a finding to this effect there would be no occasion to hold that the case is that of further inquiry."
16. The allegations in the instant cases levelled against the accused-petitioners pertaining to preparing fake documents, making forged enters in record, misappropriation of a huge amount from Government treasury and fixing stamps and signs of different persons including Presiding Officer/Sub-Registrar, Mirpur, are of heinous nature. Principal accused, Ikram-ul-Hassan, who was registration clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar misused his assignment, hence, at this stage I am of the view that sufficient evidence is available against the accused-petitioners except accused- petitioner, Naeem Sadiq, which prima-facie, connects the accused-petitioners with the above- mentioned offences. It is relevant to mention here that even though the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. particularly when the accused-persons are implicated in series of cases relating to the offences badly affecting the general public for which the bail Cannot be granted in such like cases. My this view finds support from a case reported as Shoukat Ali v. The State and another [2009 PCr.LJ (Peshawar) 19] in which it has been observed as under:- "It is well-settled principle of law that an accused cannot claim bail in non-bailable offences as a matter of right even though his case does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C.
Reliance is placed on Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported in 2002 SCMR 442 and Haji Muhammad Nazir v. The State reported in 2008 SCMR 807. This is also a rule of law applied by the superior Courts that when a person is involved in a series of cases related to offences badly affecting public-at-large, in such cases discretion of grating bail may be refused to an accused person."
17. As per record available on file, prima-facie, the accused-petitioners are involved in a heinous offences mentioned above as a result of which not only the confidence of the general public was shattered but trust of the judicial system was also severely undermined. Therefore, grant of bail of such, like persons would amount encourage to the heinous crimes in the society. As per record after completion of investigation, the characters of the accused-petitioners became appear and a specific role pertaining to connection with the commission of offences has been attributed to them, which is corroborated by documentaly evidence as well as statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., hence, the offences with which the accused--petitioners were charged fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. In such like cases refusal of bail is a rule and acceptance is an exception. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners failed to point out special feature of the above-mentioned cases which may bring their cases in any of the exceptions, hence, they also failed to substantiate that involvement of the accused-petitioners in the captioned cases is product of mala fide or on the part of the complainants or investigating agency, hence, the guidance can be derived from a case reported as Manzoor Hussain v. Ghulam Abbas and another [2014 SCR 424] follow as under:- "We may also like to observe that the trend of cheating and fraud is rising day by day and the people who are involved in suchlike activities are encouraged due to the conduct of the police for which a stern action is required to be taken to avoid such like practice in future. The argument of the learned counsel that the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., is not convincing as nobody can claim the bail as a matter of right in such like cases Each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances."
18. Adverting to Petition No.127/21, the facts of the case have sufficiently been incorporated in pre- paras and accused-petitioner claimed that the impugned order dated 30.10.2021 may be set-aside while granting bail on statutory ground of delay in trial. Apart from discussing the other aspects of the case, it can safely be concluded that in view of incriminating material available on record this is not a routine matter's case while the gravity of offence is of special nature, which is not expected by the employee of Court and it is not only wrong impression of the Courts in the general public but also is question mark on the dignity and honour of the Courts, this factum can also be kept in mind at the time of grant or refusal of bail and the same cannot be left unattended. So, the accused- petitioners do not qualify for the grant of bail in view of above legal and factual position. As per my considered view, the accused-petitioner is 'not entitled to grant of bail on statutory ground of delay in trial in view of chain of offences levelled against him. My this view finds support from a case reported as Zulfiquar Ali and another v. The State [1990 PCr.LJ 822] in which it has been observed as under:- "A person desperate and dangerous character means a person, who has a reckless disregard of the safety and property of others. The characteristic of being-desperate and dangerous is a personal attribute and, therefore, the manner in which an accused person has conducted himself at the time of commissions of offence is also an important consideration in arriving to finding of this nature. The opinion of the Court to this effect which is always tentative in nature can be formed on the basis of---
(i) nature of accusation and conduct of accused at the time of alleged incident,
(ii) previous record of the accused which may include his earlier prosecution and
(iii) material placed before the trial Court like reports of concerned police and jail authorities."
19. Coming towards Petition No.06/22, the case of the accused-petitioner, Naeern Sadiq, is different from the cases of co-accused who claimed that his case is made out for further inquiry. As the accused-petitioner is marginal witness of power of attorney dated 31.01.2020 who is not involved in other chain of offences while after completion of investigation, a challan under section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted before the competent Court of law. After tentative evidence brought on record, his case is made out for further inquiry in the given circumstances as postulated under subsection (2) of section 497 of Cr.P.C.
20. The logical inference of the foregoing reasons is that the captioned revision petitions except Petition No.06 of 2022 are hereby dismissed while maintaining the impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-corruption, Mirpur, dated 20.02.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.10.2021, 20.11.2021 and 09.12.2021. Consequently, Petition No.06 of 2022 is accepted while setting-aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2021. The accused-petitioner, Naeem Sadiq, is granted bail after arrest in FIR illat No.06/21 in offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, A.P.C. and 5(2), P.C.A. registered against him on 09.06.2021 subject to furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- with his personal bond in .the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur, provided he is not required in any other case or offence. Before parting with this order, it would be appropriate to mention here that after his release, if he remains lethargic and makes hindrance towards the conclusion of trial then it is enjoined upon the trial Court to pass an appropriate order for which this order shall not embargo on it. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the above-mentioned cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law a copy of which shall also be transmitted to the learned trial Court for compliance and in this regard, compliance report shall be submitted to Registrar, High Court positively. A copy of this order shall be annexed along with the other relevant files accordingly.