' This is bail after arrest application. Earlier I had dismissed bail before arrest application of the petitioner through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3493-B of 2004 on 27-5-2004 by passing a detailed order. In the said order I had also given some observations about the merits of the case, which have not been refuted in the investigation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent, that he has been falsely implicated, that he is a bona fide purchaser, that he purchased the said house from one Ishrat Bibi through an agreement to sell, that he has been only challaned in this case and no other accused, that he is Ph.H.D., that he had come from America, he has also drawn my attention at page 61 of this petition and submits that S.S.P. Came to the conclusion that five cases registered against the petitioner were found to be false, that he is behind the bars for the last one year and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned Addl. A.-G. Submits that petitioner has been found guilty in this case by the police, that the property involved in this case was a big Bungalow constructed on three kanals, which was worth of Rupees 3/4 crores, that so-called Ishrat Bibi is not available in Pakistan, who allegedly purchased the said Bungalow from Parveen original owner for a consideration of Rupees ninety lacs when she was stated to be in America, thereafter according to present petitioner, he purchased the said house for a consideration of Rs.90 lac, Rupees 60 lacs were paid as advance money and also got the possession of the said Bungalow, that police has made all the efforts but Ishrat Bibi is not traceable, that section 467, P.P.C. Is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that the petitioner has been placed in Column No.3 of the challan, that the paper, which has been placed on record at page 61 and has been read by learned counsel for the petitioner, has nothing to do with the instant case and is not part of police file and he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Earlier I had dismissed bail before arrest application of the petitioner after hearing all the sides on 27-5-2004, in which I had given detailed reasons for the dismissal of bail application. I had also mentioned in the said order that petitioner belonged to "Qabza Group" and according to sale agreement, which has been placed on record, on the face of it was a fake one. The said poor lady, namely, Parveen has not only been deprived of her bungalow but she was also undergoing mental torture and now was wandering from one Court to other Court in order to get the justice. After the dismissal of said bail before arrest application, petitioner submitted an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For deletion of remarks, recorded in my order dated 27-5-2004. I had also dismissed the said application on 9-6-2004, at the time of hearing of the petition, father of the petitioner also appeared before this Court and with folded hands admitted that his son, the present petitioner has committed the offence on the asking of his friends and he may be pardoned. This is a case in which heinous offence has been committed. This has not only been done with this poor lady but there are may other peoples who earn money while abroad and are being defrauded by such unscrupulous persons, known as "Qabza Groups". The tendency of grabbing property is on its peak.
The judiciary being an important limb of the State has to curb such a tendency with iron hands and can play a big role in this regard. The petitioner has been found guilty not only by local police but also D.S.P. Umar Virk. Offence alleged against him falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for bail is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed.