MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus State
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from a criminal case registered under sections 419, 420, 467, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of bank fraud. The complainant alleged that a large sum was fraudulently withdrawn from an account using a forged cheque and identity documents, with the alleged assistance of a bank employee. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, contending he was falsely implicated and was not the individual who encashed the cheque. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing evidence of the petitioner's involvement alongside co-accused, the unexplained deposit of a large sum in the petitioner's bank account, and the need for recovery of the misappropriated funds. The Court held that the petitioner failed to explain the source of the large deposit and that prima facie evidence connected him to the offence. Furthermore, noting the petitioner had remained a fugitive for a significant period, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief not warranted where there is sufficient incriminating material and a need for recovery.
- Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that can be denied when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
- Does the failure of an accused to explain the source of large deposits in their bank account constitute a ground for refusing pre-arrest bail in fraud cases?
- Can pre-arrest bail be refused if the recovery of misappropriated funds is still pending?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 63, dated 20/21-11-2007 registered under sections 419, 420, 467; 471, P.P.C., at Police Station Shadman, Lahore on the application of Jawad Ahmad Dar complainant.
2. This criminal case was registered on the complaint of Jawad Ahmed, who alleged that he is Manager of MCB Bank and on 20th and 21st of November, 2007 the representative of the account-holder Muhammad Shaffique presented cheque for encashment. All the formalities were completed and the amount was given. On 1-12-2007 Arshad Parvez came to check the account and also inquired about the balance, who was informed that Rs.1,08,024 were present in his account, but he insisted that in his account Rs.27,13,625 should be in balance. Arshed Parvez also stated that Muhammad Shafique was not his representative and the amount was withdrawn from the account by committing fraud. The case was registered and investigated. Recovery in part was made from Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Imran and they stated that Muhammad Shafique present petitioner had given them the amount. The petitioner joined the investigation and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the I.D. Card of some other person namely Muhammad Shafique was produced before the authority at the time of encashment of cheque; that the petitioner is not that person who had actually encashed the cheque and in video film he could not be viewed, but he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Deputy Prosecutor General have opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner along with two other persons namely Imran and Ali Don, had friendship with Maryium Nayyab; that the petitioner submitted a request for issuance of cheque book and then all the three persons committed fraud with the connivance of said Maryium Nayyab; that according to the finding of the Investigating Officer two persons have distributed amounts of Rs.2-1/2 and 1 1/2 lacs, while the petitioner opened an account in Dubai Islamic Bank wherein he has deposited Rs.10,00,000, he has joined the investigation and failed to explain from which source the said amount has been earned by him; and that in such circumstances when recovery of amount is yet to be effected, this petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a case in which fraud has been committed with the bank and huge amount has been got enchased from the account of Arshed Pervaz, who having come to know that Rs.27,13,663 had been got enchased through cheque made a complaint with the bank that he had not issued any cheque and no person in the name of Muhammad Shafique was given the cheque. On his complaint the Manager of bank got registered a case and during the investigation it has come into the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that petitioner along with Imran and Ali Don with the help of Maryium Nayyab had committed the offence. It has been found that Maryium Nayyab, who was employee of the bank had arranged for issuance of cheque book and also provided photocopy of ID Card where the picture was pasted with the name of Shafique sand with the connivance of Maryium fraud has been committed and amount was encashed. During the investigation it has been found that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.10 lac in the Dubai Bank, but he failed to explain the source for earning said huge amount. Prima facie sufficient material is available against the petitioner to prima facie connect him with the alleged offence and he also remained fugitive from law for about 1-1/2 years and is on pre-arrest bail, which is extraordinary relief. No mala fide on the part of the bank or account holder has been alleged to falsey implicate the petitioner in this case. Recovery of amount is yet to be effected and ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled and petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-865/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.