Muhammad Irfan Versus State Fayyaz Ahmed Mehr

Order

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.23, dated 22.3.2011, offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 109 P.P.C read with sections 5(2) 47 of PCA, Police Station FIA/CBC, District Lahore.

2. Facts in brief against the petitioner, as per FIR, are that he being Branch Manager, the then, Bank of Punjab, Muridke Branch, got opened fake and forged bank account No.003210007 on 15.11.2008 in the name of one Munir Ahmed Qazi with the connivance of co-accused Marzooq Munir Qazi, who on receiving cheque book of the said forged bank account, handed over different cheques to different persons which were dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter, a criminal case was also registered against Munir Ahmed Qazi, father of co-accused Marzooq Munir Qazi.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. Contents of FIR transpire that occurrence was shown to have been taken place in the year 2008, whereas, the crime report/FIR was chalked out on 22.3.2011, after considerable delay without explaining any sufficient reasons, therefore, chances of petitioner's false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, no exact date and time of occurrence is mentioned in the FIR. Reliance can be made upon cases titled "Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State" (2010 SCMR 949), "Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others" (2010 SCMR 385) and "Hadayatullah v Abdul Hameed and another" (1984 SCMR 119). Furthermore, it has come on surface that none had sustained any financial loss as a result of alleged crime.

5. The petitioner is under the allegation that he being Branch Manager in connivance with co-accused Marzooq Ahmed Qazi and other bank officials/co-accused, opened and operated a fake/bogus bank account in the name of one Munir Ahmed Qazi (father of co-accused Marzooq Ahmed Qazi) with mala fide intentions. Co-accused Nadeem Younas had also been extended the premium of pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.4.2011. It has been noticed by this Court that co-accused of the present petitioner, namely, Marzooq Munir Qazi, who is step son of aggrieved person Munir Ahmed Qazi, had already been admitted to post arrest bail in this case by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2020 (Criminal.Misc. No. 7580-B/2020). It is not disputed that the case of the present petitioner is not in any manner dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case of the said co-accused person (Marzooq Munir Qazi). In these circumstances, there is no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the same manner in the matter of bail as his co-accused person who had already been admitted to bail. The principle of consistency is to be followed in order to maintain balance and the doctrine of an equality before law as enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thus, the role of co-accused person is at par with the present petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief under the doctrine of parity . The rule of consistency or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases including bail matters encapsulates that where the incriminated and ascribed roie to the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused person then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offences. While applying doctrine of parity in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made out or not. In all attending circumstances, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry as well and also covered under the rule of parity. While relying upon the case titled "Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. State" (1979 SCMR 9) this Court reaches to a definite conclusion to release the petitioner on bail on the principle of consistency for the reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar to that of petitioner was attributed had been so released on bail. This principle of parity has further been elaborated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Muhammad Nadim v. The State and another" (2023 SCMR 184). Learned State counsel has also failed to distinguish the role of the petitioner to that of co-accused person who has already enlarged the same relief by this Court.

6. The entire prosecution case is based upon documentary evidence which are already in possession of the prosecution and as such there is no chance of tampering with the same therefore, in the circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Reference in this context may be made to the case of 'Saeed Ahmad v. The State' (1996 SCMR 1132) and Jabran and another v. The State through Director General FIA and others (2025 SCMR 1099).

7. Learned State counsel has laid much emphasis on this point that the petitioner remains fugitive from law. It is by now well settled that when accused becomes entitled for grant of bail as a inatter of right, then he cannot be declined such relief due to abscondance which is matter of propriety. There is a plethora of case law that when case of the prosecution requires further inquiry and falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., then he is granted bail as a matter of right and cannot be declined said relief due to his abscondance which is a matter of proprietary and in this regard, case of "Said Nabi v. Ajmal Khan and another" (2024 SCMR 464) and Hidayat Khan v. The State (2023 SCMR 172).

8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that liberty of a person is precious right which cannot be taken away unless there are exceptional grounds to do so. Reliance in this respect is placed on case reported as "Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo v. The State" (2023 SCMR 734). By now it is also well settled that it is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail. Guidance may be sought from the case titled Ahmad Nawaz and another v. The State and another (2024 SCMR 1525).

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Before parting with this order, we deem necessary to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing effect on any of the other proceeding connected to this case.

JK/M-163/L Petition allowed.