' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- The petitioner is seeking bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,78 of 2005, dated 25-3-2005 under sections 337-F(i), 380, 452, 448, 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Chichawatni District Khanewal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant was a clerk of Ch. Muhammad Ali and they were residing in Dera situated at College Road. The son-in-law of the complainant namely Imdad Ali, the present petitioner was a barber and his economic position was not sound.
The husband of the complainant brought the petitioner to live with them. After the death of the husband, the complainant shifted to a house in Ahmad Nagar, leaving behind her daughter and son-in-law, the petitioner to live in the house at Dera situated at College Road. After some time, petitioner took possession of the house as well as other articles and started claiming to be owner of the same. The complainant reported the matter to the police alleging therein that on 1-2-2005 the complainant son-in-law, the present petitioner Imdad Ali along with Lal Hussain Niazi and five unknown persons trespassed into the house of the complainant, mal-treated her and started shifting articles lying in the house. He removed Rs,1,000, locket and golden ear-rings of the complainant and threatened to kill her if resisted.
3. It is argued that F.I.R. Is totally false, based on concocted and fabricated facts. The petitioner apprehending arrest applied for bail before arrest in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, which was dismissed, hence this bail petition. It is argued that there is a delay of 1 month and 23 days in lodging the F.I.R., for which no plausible explanation is given. The F.I.R. Is totally false baseless. No such incident has ever taken place rather the complainant wrongly and unjustifiably tried to take possession of the house, which was rented to Inayatullah Niazi by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that of further inquiry. The complainant had submitted contradictory applications to the local police, wherein different role has been attributed to the petitioner. The stand taken in the applications and version recorded in the F.I.R. Are totally contradictory. The complainant submitted an application to the Justice of Peace. The report submitted by the local police as that complainant herself was aggressor and in this scuffle some minor injuries were received by the complainant. In that report S.H.O. Submitted that no cognizable offence was made out. The matter is of a civil nature regarding the title of the property in question and requested for filing of the case of the complainant. Offence under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. Is bailable. The provisions of section 380, P.P.C. Are not applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner. The house in question is owned by the petitioner's wife, which was given on rent to Inayatullah Niazi and the complainant tried to forcibly take the possession of the house and tried to illegally eject the tenant of the petitioner's wife. Thus, provisions of section 452, P.P.C. Are not attracted. Similarly the provisions of sections 451 and 448 are also not applicable. A civil suit for eviction of Inayatullah Niazi was filed by Mst. Parveen Akhtar.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant states that the property in question belongs to the complainant but no document showing the complainant to be owner of the house in question has been produced, whereas, the petitioner's counsel produced a copy of Register Haqdaran for the year 1991-92 showing Mst. Riaz Akhtar wife of Imdad Ali is shown to be owner of the land in question along with Parveen Akhter wife of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Latif son of Allah Ditta. As per this document Mst. Riaz Akhtar is owner of 3 Marlas of the land. The other document is pertaining to Khata No,261; Khatuni No,506 showing that Imdad Ali son of Muhammad Sharif is owner in possession of House No,7294. Admittedly the dispute pertains to a case of civil nature regarding ownership of the land underneath. As per complainant own showing, she was not residing in the house at the time of filing of the F.I.R., she herself stated that after the death of her husband she shifted to some other house mentioned in the F.I.R. There is a delay of 1 month and 23 days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained in the F.I.R. Since the complainant was not residing in the house at the time of occurrence, the question of trespassing the house by the petitioner on the day of occurrence does not seem to be correct. The case of the petitioner is admittedly of further inquiry and falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Hence the bail before arrest granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. He is directed to submit fresh bail bonds of the value of Rs,25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of the trial Court.