' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. Is against Muhammad Yousaf, that complainant never entered into agreement to sell with the petitioners and they have committed no offence. He further submits that section 420, P.P.C. Is not attracted while section 468/471, P.P.C. Are non-cognizable, that petitioners are not claiming anything from the complainant and complainant is also not claiming anything from the petitioners, that possession of the property is still with the complainant, that in fact it was a bargain between the petitioners and Muhammad Yousaf, as there was an agreement between complainant and Muhammad Yousaf and on the basis of said agreement petitioners have purchased the land, that petitioners had paid Rs,1,23,00,000 to Muhammad Yousaf, that 1-1/2 months prior to the registration of F.I.R. Petitioners have also filed suit for specific performance, that Muhammad Yousaf appeared in the civil suit and had admitted an agreement between himself and the petitioners, that complainant when entered appearance before the Civil Court in the civil suit he submitted that he did not sign the papers regarding sale-agreement between him and Muhammad Yousaf, on which petitioners had submitted an application for getting specimen signatures of the complainant, so the same may be sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison in order to reach at just conclusion, that Muhammad Yousaf has now run away, that in fact fraud has been committed with the petitioners, that case of the petitioners is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And interim bail already granted to the petitioners may be confirmed.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that sale-agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant is based on fraud, that complainant never thumb-marked the same, that there is no proof of giving money to the complainant by Muhammad Yousaf, that in fact it is a big gang including the petitioners and Muhammad Yousaf, that complainant had nothing to do with the petitioners but petitioners filed suit for specific performance in collusion with said Muhammad Yousaf, who along with complainant was made respondent in that suit, that on 22-6-2005 Muhammad Yousaf appeared before the civil Court and made a consenting statement in favor of the petitioners, that one Ahmad Hassan son of Moula Bakhsh is witness of alleged sale-agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant; who is absconder, that thumb-impressions of said Ahmad Hassan is totally different with each other, one on sale-agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant and other on the affidavit of said Ahmad Hassan, that bail before arrest application of the petitioners was dismissed on 23-7- 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereafter on 28-7-2005 they submitted an application to said Civil Judge, where suit for specific performance .Was pending adjudication, along with original sale-agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant, that now said Muhammad Yousaf is not traceable, that there is no cheque, cross-cheque or draft in favor of Muhammad Yousaf allegedly given by the petitioners as a consideration of that sale of piece of land, that during the course of investigation petitioners have been found guilty by the police and interim bail granted to them be recalled.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that first agreement to sell between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant was executed on 19-2-2005 while the second agreement to sell between Muhammad Yousaf and present petitioners was executed on 27-4-2005, that both the transactions are amounting to crore of rupees but the first Investigating Officer again and again insisted and directed the petitioners to produce original agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant but they failed to produce the same, that in fact it should have been with the petitioners and they should have produced before the Investigating Officer in order to prove their bona fide and now the claim of the petitioners is that they had submitted the same in the civil Court. He further submits that according to investigation first transaction between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant was found to be false and fake and was maneuvered for the purpose of making second agreement, that petitioners have tried to deprive the complainant from his land amounting to crore of rupees.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for the grant of bail before arrest.
Complainant is also present in this Court. He is an old man of 90 years of age, he has denied any agreement between him and Muhammad Yousaf. He submits that he even did not meet Muhammad Yousaf and never thumb-marked the sale-agreement. The actual beneficiaries in this case are the present petitioners. Muhammad Yousaf is still at large, even Ahmad Hassan witness to the agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant is still at large while Arshad Khan accused has been arrested by the police. Moreover, during the course of investigation, an agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant has been found to be fabricated one, a big fraud has been prima facie committed with the complainant about the land amounting to crore of rupees. In the civil suit Muhammad Yousaf became respondent, who made a consenting statement in favor of the petitioners in order to get him benefited and the petitioners. Offence alleged against the petitioners is a heinous in nature. In this view of the matter, interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby recalled by dismissing this bail petition.
5. Before parting with this order, I direct Investigating Officer that he should attend the Court of Civil Judge, where suit for specific performance is pending adjudication, he will get the original agreement between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant, he will also get thumb-impressions of the complainant, his National I.D. Card and other relevant papers and send the same along with said sale-agreement executed between Muhammad Yousaf and complainant to Director Technical F.I.A. HQ. G-9/4 at Islamabad for its comparison because it will prove whether this agreement was fabricated one or not. Meanwhile, complainant shall deposit Rs,500 (fee of F.I.A.
Authority) in State Bank of Pakistan.