DR. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AAZAM vs ARIF ALI and 2 others
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the lower court in a case involving allegations of fraud, cheating, and the use of bogus identity documents in a property transaction. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to the accused persons by the Additional Sessions Judge and whether sufficient grounds existed for its cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that while the bail granted to one respondent should remain intact due to a lack of active incriminating evidence or specific role attributed, the pre-arrest bail granted to the main accused, Arif Ali, who actively participated in the fraudulent transaction and issued a dishonored cheque, was unjustified. The court established the key principle that considerations for pre-arrest bail differ from post-arrest bail, and where the primary accused is prima facie connected to a serious fraud and fails to explain incriminating circumstances, pre-arrest bail cannot be sustained and must be recalled.
- Are the considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail different from post-arrest bail?
- Whether bail granted to an accused can be cancelled when prima facie evidence connects him to the crime?
- Does the absence of any specific incriminating role on the record warrant maintaining pre-arrest bail for a co-accused?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents in connivance with each other had committed fraud with the petitioner; that actual owner of the plot Tasleem Khan was never produced; that bogus identity card of Tasleem Khan was produced; that bogus persons were produced in order to commit fraud; that Arif Ali, Sana Bhatti and Bootey Shah came together to the complainant and asked him to purchase the plot; that cheque which was issued by Arif Ali was dishonored; that now Saeed Ahmad has been arrested who posed himself as Tasleem Khan who had died in Saudi Arabia; that Bootey Shah is till at large; that Tahir who in fact had allegedly purchased the plot from . Tasleem Khan, he after getting ad-interim bail had disappeared; that this is a bail before arrest; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different and that no case for bail before arrest is made out.
3. Learned Addl: A.G submits that it was Arif Ali who had identified Tasleem Khan; that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant Dr. Muhammad Ramzati; that he is the main culprit and introduced Muhammad Saeed as Tasleem Khan who was actual owner of the plot.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Arif Ali submits that Arif Ali' had issued a cheque but he had not received any amount; that he had issued the cheque as security; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and cancellation of bail are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Lahore 164 and adds that respondent had not misused the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for Sana Bhatti submits that there is no allegation whatsoever on the record to connect Sana Bhatti with the alleged offence.
6. Heard. First of all I will take up the case of Sana Bhatti. He for the first time went to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant alongwith Botey Shah and Tahir so no role whatsoever is attributed to him in whole of the FIR and in whole of investigation. As far as bail granted to him is concerned, that should remain intact. This application to his extent is dismissed.
7. As far as Arif All respondent is concerned, all the prosecution evidence revolves around him. He is the main culprit in this case. He is the person who went to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant. He is the person who had issued the cheque. He is the person who stated that Tahir is his maternal uncle and he had purchased the plot from Tasleem Khan. Tahir has been arrested. He is the person who had issued the cheque of Rs_ 800/000/- to the complainant but later on when the complainant went to have the said money, it was told by the Bank Authority that his account has been closed. If Arif Ali was innocent, till today neither he nor Tahir who had got ad-interim bail had failed suit against Saeed Ahmad. Arif Ali had not filed any application under Section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.0 for registration of the case against Saeed Ahmad. In fact they are conniving with each other is this fraud. This is bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after are totally different. Learned Addl: Sessions Judge on surmises and conjectures had granted bail before arrest to the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case for bail before arrest is made out to the extent of Arif Ali respondent. This petition to his extent is accepted and bail granting order is hereby recalled.