SHAH UMAR FAROOQ Versus State
ORDER
SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J.--- Through the instant petition, the Petitioner [Shah Umar Farooq] is seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.61 dated 03.02.2020 registered for the offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. with Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts, as per the FIR, are that at about 7:00 p.m., on 03.02.2020 Muhammad Sadiq, ASI came back to police station and upon getting information reached Police Service Centre. The in charge, Irshad Ali Reserve Inspector handed over to him vehicle No. ICT/PS/726 Toyota Corolla white coloured Model 2009 Engine No.X987493 Chassis No.NEZ142030207 in the use of Bilal son of Muhammad Din, resident of House No.97, Street No.8, Mohallah Badar Colony Khayaban-e-Iqbal, which was brought to Police Service Center by him for checking. On checking engine number and chassis number of the vehicle were found tampered with. On suspicion the vehicle was taken into possession under sections 550/523, Cr.P.C., and parked in the police station. Vide report No.28 dated 17.12.2019, Muhammad Rasheed ASI, Police Station Kohsar received laboratory report No.2893/2010 dated 26.12.2019 through Moharrer. According to report before laboratory [examination] the vehicle was found having Engine No.NZE1402030207 and Chassis No.NZE1402xxxxxx, whereas after the laboratory [examination] Engine No.X987493 and Chassis No.XXX42XX were found, which according to laboratory report new engine and chassis numbers did not emerge due to deep filling. Before the occurrence the above said Bilal purchased the vehicle from the Petitioner through an agreement, hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case; that the Petitioner has no nexus with this case; that vehicle was brought for test on 17.12.2019 and found tampered with, whereas FIR was registered on 03.02.2020 with two months' delay, which has not been explained; that the vehicle in question was brought by Bilal for inspection, which was found tampered with despite which the said Bilal and earlier registered owner of the vehicle Mazdek Khan have not been made accused in this case, which shows mala fide; that the Petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of the photocopy of an agreement, which is denied by the Petitioner; that fake CNIC of the Petitioner was obtained from NADRA to involve him in this case and the Petitioner never entered into such an agreement nor has any connection with the vehicle in question.
4. The learned State Counsel submitted that the Petitioner sold the vehicle to Bilal through open transfer letter; that alleged fake CNIC of the Petitioner contains his picture and the same has been sent to NADRA for verification; that the Petitioner has committed fraud, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. There is an unexplained delay in registration of the FIR. In any event, the offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable. Insofar as the offence under section 468, P.P.C. is concerned the punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is admittedly not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. He has been implicated on the basis of an agreement which is denied by the Petitioner and in respect of which NADRA verification is awaited. The foregoing makes it a case of further inquiry. No other material is available on the basis of which the Petitioner can be detained therefore malice cannot be ruled out at this stage.
7. According to the recent pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sajid Hussain alias JOJI v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 898, the scope of pre-arrest bail was narrow and limited to rare cases in the past however it has now grown as the law is not static. It was held:
"7. This Court in the above-referred salutary judgment rendered by a five members' bench has broadened the scope of pre-arrest bail and held that while granting extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, merits of the case can be touched upon. Hence, virtually the scope of pre-arrest bail has been extended by this Court while rendering the afore-referred judgment. Even otherwise, this aspect of the law further lends support from the bare reading of provisions of sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. The word 'further inquiry' has wide connotation. Interpretation of criminal law requires that the same should be interpreted in the way it defined the object and not to construe in a manner that could defeat the ends of justice. Otherwise, an accused is always considered a 'favorite child of law'. When all these aspects are considered conjointly on the touchstone of principles of criminal jurisprudence enunciated by superior courts from time to time, there is no second thought to this proposition that the scope of pre-arrest bail indeed has been stretched out further which impliedly persuade the courts to decide such like matters in more liberal manner. Because basic law is bail not jail. Otherwise, the liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Denial of liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Courts should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion. Such exercise should not be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy or casual manner as that would defeat the ends of justice because court if the accused is ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for the long incarceration he had already suffered. Even none of the provisions of Cr.P.C. provide any remedy to be claimed by the petitioner for its compensation."
8. For what has been discussed above, the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, this bail petition is accepted and the earlier ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the Petitioner, vide order dated 25.07.2022, is hereby confirmed, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The Petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required and appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing without fail.
9. All the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall no bearing on the final determination of guilt or innocence by the trial Court.
SA/161/Isl. Pre-arrest bail granted.