M. IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a bank manager, was accused of forging documents to obtain a loan in the complainant's name. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of forgery and the surrounding circumstances. The court observed that while the prosecution alleged fraud, the loan amount had already been deposited by a co-accused who acted as a guarantor. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of prima facie evidence demonstrating the petitioner's personal gain or direct connivance in the alleged fraud, suggesting that the petitioner's actions might at most amount to negligence in verifying loan records. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that where there is no prima facie evidence of personal gain or direct connivance in a financial fraud case, and the loan amount has been recovered, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed despite allegations of procedural negligence.
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable where the loan amount in question has already been deposited by a guarantor?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding personal gain or direct connivance justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a forgery case?
- Can a bank manager be granted pre-arrest bail if the allegations against them suggest professional negligence rather than criminal intent?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Muhammad Iqbal petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station Malka Hans for offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,288 dated 16-11-2005.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Saleem first informant is that petitioner being Manager of the H.B.L. Along with co-accused after forging documents, obtained a loan on the complainant's name whereas complainant is landless, who was shown owner of 106 Kanals, 10 Marlas land through Mutation No,1085 dated 8-9-2004 of Village Chak Sanday, hence the present F.I.R.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of one year in the registration of the case; that the documents prepared for sanction of loan in favour of the complainant were prepared by the Revenue officials, which were verified by the agricultural Field Officer and ultimately the case was forwarded for sanction by the petitioner as Branch Manager; that there is no direct evidence of having any connivance on the part of the petitioner with the other accused persons; that the case has been lodged in order to create an excuse for non- payment of the loan amount; that the amount in question had already been deposited by Saeed Ahmad although a co-accused but a guarantor of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed this application by contending that there is no delay in the F.I.R. The moment the complainant case to know about the loan created against him he immediately started activity against the petitioner and other co-accused; that the petitioner is involved in many other cases of identical nature of the same branch; that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The delay in the instant case prima facie does not appear to be fatal if the story put forwarded by the complainant is believed to be true, however, I would not like to comment upon this fact at this stage. Admittedly the amount in question had already been deposited by Saeed Ahmad co- accused who is recorded to be guarantor on the part of the complainant. Prima facie at this stage, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had any connivance or interest of personal gain in the matter. There may be some negligence on his part in not properly examining the record of the loan case; therefore keeping all these factors in view, pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17-1-2006 is confirmed.