ORDER Ch. Muhammad Munir, petitioner,. Through this petition has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 143 dated 6.6.2005 registered at Police Station Sabz Peer under Sections 420/468/471 PPC.
Allegedly, Rashid Ahmad, co- accused, prepared a forged rent agreement in favour of Arshad Ali, co-accused on 4.9.2003. The petitioner is stated to' have affixed his signature as a marginal witness, it purports to have been drawn by Muhammad Anwar, Clerk of Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate, which also bears seal and signature of a Notary Public. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the shop from Sajjad Hussain through registered sale-deed dated 25.6.2004. Said Sajjad Hussain had rented out the shop to Arshad Ali on 29.1.2004 for a sum of Rs.
1600/- per month. The case of Noor Ahmad, complainant, is that the accused fabricated the alleged agreement in back date in order to defeat his rights.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at ' length. A perusal of record produced before me shows that Sajjad Hussain S/o Fazal Hussain had purchased a shop through registered deed dated 7.6.1990. Whereas Noor Ahmad, complainant, had purchased the said-shop from Sajjad Hussain through a deed registered on .25.6.2004. Prior to that Sajjad Hussain and Arashd Ali had executed a rent note dated 29.1.2004. In view of this Rent Note Arshad Ali son of Muhammad Shabhir was in occupation of the shop as tenant of Sajjad Hussain on 10.3.2004. Brother of present petitioner, Rashid Ahmad, co-accused filed a suit for possession against Sajjad Hussain on the basis of dn Arbitration Award, which had been made rule of the Court on 29.10.2001. During the pendency of the suit filed by Rashid the property in dispute was purchased by Noor Ahmad, complainant, which is still pending adjudication in a Civil Court, it is of marked importance that Rashid Ahmad in his civil suit instituted on 10.3.2004 had prayed for actual physical possession of the disputed shop. The prayer for possession made by Rashid Ahmad clearly shows that he was neither directly nor indirectly (through Arshad Ali) was shown in possession of the disputed shop. He had made no mention that Arshad Ali had been occupying the disputed shop as a tenant under agreement dated 4.9.2003. This omission on the part of Rashid Ahmad, prima facie, shows that agreement dated 4.9.2003 was prepared subsequently. I would not like to dilate much upon this point. During the investigation of the case the Notary Public has declined to have attested the alleged agreement, In the circumstances of case there are reasons to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged. No ground for pre-arrest bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.