MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, in relation to FIR No. 173/2008 registered at Police Station Haram Gate, Multan, for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging that his employee had forged his signatures on a cheque and committed fraud. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner had previously suppressed the fact that an earlier bail petition on the same subject had been dismissed, and that the petitioner had been found guilty during the investigation. The Court addressed the core question of whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given his conduct and the evidence on record. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding his previous bail application and the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence connecting him to the alleged offence disentitled him to the relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is intended to protect innocent citizens from humiliation, not to shield those involved in heinous offences.
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding a previously dismissed bail application disentitle a petitioner to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail available to a petitioner against whom there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting them to the alleged offence?
- What is the primary purpose of pre-arrest bail in the context of criminal proceedings?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Siddique, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No, 173/2008 dated 25.10.2008 registered at Police Station Haram Gate District Multan, for an offence under Section 489-F PPC.
2. Inter alia contends that the petitioner is innocent and in fact his employee by forging his signatures on cheque, committed fraud and that a criminal case was also registered by the petitioner against his employee and that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence whatsoever. He was admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 20.04.2009. Prays that the same may be confirmed.
3. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this petition. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that with the same plea, the petitioner's earlier moved criminal Miscellaneous No, 1076-B/2009 was dismissed on account of absence of the petitioner and that by suppression of facts he sought ad interim bail from this Court. The conduct demonstrated by the petitioner thus according to the learned counsel for the complainant dis-entitles him for the relief prayed for; that he has been found guilty during the course of investigation; that he has committed fraud which is an offence of heinous nature.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR with attribution of specific role of committing fraud and forgery. He has been found guilty during the course of investigation. He has also suppressed facts from this Court. His earlier bail was dismissed as being withdrawn by another learned Bench of this Court and concealed the factum thereof, he moved second petition on the same subject.
The conduct demonstrated by him is reflective of his personality as well as mind set. Sufficient evidence on record is available to at least prim-facie connect him with the offence alleged against him. No malice and mala fide have been pointed out. In view of above I am not inclined to allow him pre-arrest bail which is meant for protecting the innocent citizens from humilitation and not for encouragement of persons involved in offence of heinous nature. This petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.