' Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 185 dated 17-4-2001 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Lahore under sections 420/471/467, P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Tabassum Munir, Chief Executive MTM Security (Private) Ltd.The allegation levelled in the said F.I.R. Is that the complainant who is a member of the Lahore Stock Exchange is carrying out its business of purchase and sale of shares. In August 2000 a person by giving his personal particulars claiming him Furqan Ahmad son of Sultan Ahmad bearing I.D. Card No, 104-71-124338 approached the company of the complainant for the sale of shares of American Life Insurance Company (Pakistan) Limited. During the period from 16-8-2000 to 24-2-2001 said Furqan Ahmad delivered them for sale the shares Certificates amounting to Rs,15,15,000 along with the transfer deeds detailed in the F.I.R. Which were sold for Rs,19,00,000.
'Subsequently the share certificates submitted by the said Furqan Ahmad were found as fake and forged and fabricated documents hence according to the complainant a fraud has been committed and the case under the above mentioned sections .Was registered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And is not connected in any manner with the commission of the crime. Offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable. Other offences are not attracted in the circumstances of the case. Petitioner is in judicial lock-up and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Bail cannot be withheld as punishment. He may be allowed bail. It is further contended that mere involvement of huge amount will not be ground for refusal of bail as laid down in Ijaz Ahmad's case cited in (1978 SCM R 64). It is further contended that above said case is fully applicable in the circumstances of this case. He may be allowed bail.
3. On the other hand Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the ground that Imran Baig posing himself as Furqan has got prepared a forged I.D.Card in the name of Furqan at the time of selling the bogus shares who was identified from the record of the Bank from where the cheques valuing more than Rs, 19,00,000 were en cashed. It is further contended that two other I.D.
Card in the name of Imran Baig bearing. Registration No, 274-90-004478 and 274-71-004478 were recovered and taken into possession from the custody of the petitioner. It is further contended that petitioner is involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause as section 467, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment for life. Sufficient evidence has been collected by the prosecution and petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has also opposed the bail application on the ground that huge amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner by preparing bogus documents and is not entitled to the relief.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. That one Furqan Ahmad has sold the shares of American Life Insurance Company. The face value of the shares is Rs,15,15,000. The complainant has subsequently in supplementary statement mentioned the name of the petitioner as the real culprit who impersonating him as Furqan Ahmad sold the shares of the company. The I.D. Card of said Furqan has been got recovered by the Investigating Officer during the Investigation bearing No, 104-71-124338 in which signature of the petitioner has been fixed showing Furqan Ahmad son of Sultan Ahmad. It is also brought on the record of the police file that on the basis of this I.D. Card A/C No, 4210-8 has been opened in the name of the petitioner and the cheques issued by the complainant have been got en cashed from the said Branch by the petitioner. Even otherwise two other I.D. Cards bearing No, 274-71-004478 and 274-90-004478 have been recovered from the custody of the petitioner.
Sufficient evidence has been collected by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Petitioner is involved in case falling within the prohibitory clause and has failed to make out a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for due to the serious allegation levelled against the petitioner. This application has no merits and is dismissed.