This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 3493/B/2004 titled as Qaisar Rafique versus State and W.P.
No. 6292/Q/2004 titled as Qaisar Rafique versus SHO etc.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case against the petitioner is totally false, that there is delay of two months in lodging the FIR, that petitioner is the bonafide purchaser, that he was in U.S.A. at the time of occurrence, that he purchased the said house from one Ishrat Bibi through an agreement to sell and a receipt issued by said Mst. Ishrat Bibi has also been placed on record, that transaction took place between Parveen original owner and Mst. Ishrat Bibi on 2.5.2003 while later on, sale-agreement was executed between said Ishrat Bibi and present petitioner on 20.1.2004, that all the offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. that original documents have been handed over to the police, that petitioner has joined the investigation, that case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under Sub- section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Adds that petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit, which was dismissed but the appeal is pending before the learned Addl: Sessions Judge. Further submits that petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and if his bail is dismissed, then he will suffer irreparable loss. He lastly submits that petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
3. On the other hand, learned Addl. A.G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that Mst. Parveen had left Pakistan on 19.4.2003 while forged agreement between Mst. Ishrat and Parveen took place on 2.5.2003 when said Parveen was not present in Pakistan, that Mst. Ishrat Bibi is a fake lady and her identity card is also a fake one, that stamp vendor is not available and he is not even authorized stamp vendor, that considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different and it is not a case of bail before arrest.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through all the documents with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been placed on record by the petitioner in the quashment petition and in the bail petition. Petitioner had applied twice for bail before arrest and on each occasion, he dis-appeared from the Court and his applications were dismissed for non-prosecution. Mst. Ishrat Bibi with whom it was alleged that Mst. Parveen owner of the house struck the original bargain, is not available; she is a fake lady according to the report submitted by SSP Investigation. Her identity card was also a fake one, even the stamp vendor is not available and he is not even an authorized stamp vendor. I am unable to understand that on the one hand, Mst. Ishrat Bibi had purchased the said house from Mst. Parveen in the sum of Rs. 90, lacs but in spite of that Mst. Parveen after receiving Rs. 30, lacs handed over the possession of the said house to Mst. Ishrat Bibi, then, after one year second transaction took place amounting to Rs. 90 lac between present petitioner and Mst. Ishrat Bibi, only Rs. 60, lacs was paid and Rs. 30, lac was yet to paid when this case registered but neither said Mst. Ishrat Bibi nor the present petitioner had seen any origiinal document about the entitlement regarding the property in dispute. Moreover, when one person is paid a huge amount i.e. Rs. 60, lac and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 30, lac is yet to be paid, he would not hand over the possession of the property but unfortunately, it has become a practice that "Qabza group" in this part of the country in order to take illegal possession firstly make these type of agreements to sell and then file Civil Suit. Record shows that petitioner belongs to "Qabza Group" and agreement to sell, which has been placed on record, on the face of it is a fake one. The said poor lady has been deprived of her bungalow but also she is also undergoing mental torture and now she is wandering from one Court to other Court in order to get the justice.
Such type of person is not entitled far any leniency. What to talk of bail before arrest, this is not even a bail after arrest. In this view of the matter, both these petitions are dismissed.