2010 Y L R 526
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C.J. and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J
Kh. ZAHID AHMAD and others—Petitioners
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9216/B of 2009, decided on 20th August, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—
—-Ss.498—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/109—Criminal breach of trust—Bail before arrest, refusal of—Names of accused persons had been mentioned in the F.I.R. by the complainant/manager of the Bank—Bail before arrest was meant to protect the innocent citizens, if they were found to have been involved with mala fide intention and ulterior motives—Complainant was a Bank Manager, who had no personal vendetta or grudge to falsely implicate accused persons in the case—Case was not fit for grant of bail before arrest as the recovery had yet to be effected.
M.A. Malik and Sittar Sahil for Petitioners.
Ahsan Masood for the Complainant.
Ch. Jamshaid Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State with Muhammad Akram, S.-I. with Record.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.300 dated 4 -7-2009, registered under sections 406/109 P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Wazirabad District Gujranwala on the application of Muhammad Khan complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that against bank loan of Rs. 35 Crore obtained by Kh. Waseem Ahmad brother of the present petitioners through the loan facility of Muslim Commercial Bank Wazirabad, the present petitioners stood as guarantors for return of the said loan amount and as collateral securities for return of the said amount of 37743 sacks of rice were pledged in favour of the bank, which was kept in the godowns of the mills of the petitioners M/s Madina Rice Mills, Ahmad Nagar Road, Wazirabad, under the guard of M/s Tahaffz Corporation a Maqaddam Company, but during inspection of the godowns by the Manager of the complainant Bank on 3-7-2009, the pledged stock was found lifted away and some of that available at the site was also being taken away by Munir Ahmad, Mubashar Ahmad and Kh. Nisar Ahmad petitioners present at the spot through their employees and on interruption by the complainant bank and his companions they were forcibly pushed out of the mills premises.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that Wasim Ahmed is the sole proprietor of the company namely Bama International Traders, who had obtained loan and civil suit has been filed by the company where defendant No.1, Wasim Ahmad has been shown as proprietor while the remaining petitioners were only guarantors of the loan and due to this reason they have been falsely implicated in the present case as said Wasim Ahmad has gone abroad; that out of the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Anas Ahmad, Tanvir Ahmad, Tayyab Ahmad and Azhar Ahmad are also in abroad and their names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. while Mubarik Ali and Mubashar Ahmad were guards of the company and Saqlain Abbas was their supervisor, that the offence under section 406 P.P.C. is not made out as no property was entrusted to the petitioners and the petitioners namely Kh. Shoaib Ahmed and Mubashir Ahmad have no concern with the case as well and only Kh. Zahid Ahmad has been nominated showing him present at the spot which fact is also false; that no offence is made out against the petitioners, and the bail before arrest may be confirmed as mala fide of the complainant is crystal clear as the petitioners only stood guarantors and the case was got registered only to pressurize the petitioners to pay liability by involving them in this false case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General oppose this bail application and have maintained in unison that petitioner Kh. Zahid Ahmed had been issuing cheques and receiving the amounts on behalf of Wasim Ahmad and he also looking his total business; that loan of Rs.35, Crore had been taken and sacks of rice were pledged which were found to have been misappropriated when the local commission visited the place of incident; that there is no reason to falsely implicate the petitioners in the present case, who have committed a heinous offence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The names of the petitioners have been mentioned in the F.I.R. by Muhammad Khan complainant Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd Railway Road, Wazirabad with the allegation that M/s Bama International Traders had obtained loan of Rs.35, Crore and got pledged its Property including 37743 sacks of super Basmati rice and each bag contained 100 K.G. Basmati rice as security of the said loan and the pledged stock was kept in M/s. Mian Rice Mills, Ahmad Nagar Road, Wazirabad. On 3-7-2009 at 3-30 p.m. the complainant along with other officials of the bank went to inspect of pledged rice. At that time Mubarik Ali and Muhammad Bashir guards of the company, i.e. accused in the present case were not present and most of the pledged stock was found missing and Kh. Zahid Ahmad was seen while removing the said bags with the help of his employees. He also threatened them with dire consequences. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that Kh. Wasim Ahmad, Kh. Shoaib Ahmad, Mubashar Ahmad and Kh. Zahid Ahmad and other persons had connived with the co-accused for the removal of the said stock which was pledged as security. Learned counsel forthe complainant has shown copies of numerous cheques which were signed and presented by Kh. Zahid Ahmad for withdrawal of amount on behalf of Bama International Traders and he had been looking after the whole affairs of the company while Wasim Ahmad proprietor has gone abroad before taking place of the present incident. The other persons are also closely related to him and according to the prosecution they are involved in the crime and sufficient evidence also has been collected in this regard. The bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens if they are found to have been involved with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. The complainant is a bank Manager, who has no personal vendetta or grudge to falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case. It is not a fit case for grant of bail before arrest as the recovery has yet to be effected. Hence, this petition having no merits is dismissed.
H.B.T./Z-65/L Bail refused.