ORDER KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. - Learned counsel for the' petitioner submits that respondent was granted conditional bail by my learned brother All Nawaz Chohan, J. (as he then was) on 19.1.2006; that thereafter investigation was conducted by Ch. Muhammad Anwar, DSP who recorded the statements of vendors and now they have become prosecution witnesses in this case and the said DSP found the respondent guilty; that respondent is not only involved in this case but also involved in 5/6 other cases copies of which have been placed on record; that it was not a case for bail before arrest; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different; that there are 6/8 registered sale-deeds and petitioner had paid one crore and fourteen lacs as earnest money to the vendors Shaukat and Akram and the balance amount was three crore thirty six lacs; that respondent paid rupees three crore and twenty six lacs to the vendors mentioned above excluding the earnest money, which was paid by the petitioner, that respondent posed himself as representative to Paragon Company and he not only committed fraud with the petitioner but also with the vendors; that respondent is habitual criminal and in this regard he has placed on record photo-copies of six FIRs that's D.1 to D.6; that Nazim, Aziz Bhatti Town had given an advertisement in Daily "Khabren" regarding mischief and fraud being committed by the respondent and that he is not entitled to the grant of prearrest bail.
2. On the . Other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact there are two rival groups, one from Paragone Company being represented by the petitioner and the other from Green City represented by present respondent;. That respondent has then falsely implicated in this case; that in fact vendors are accused who have become prosecution witnesses in this case; that they had made some statements, which were made before the earlier Investigating Officer;_ that the FIR D.1 has. Been cancelled; that as far as FIR D.2 is concerned, matter has been compromised; that FIRs D.3, D.5 and D,6 are pending before, the learned Trial Court; that as far as FIR D.4 is concerned, respondent has no connection with the said FIR; that there arg three civil suits pending between the parties.
3. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these suits are regarding cancellation of sale- deeds filed by the vendors of the said land; that the complainant has filed suit for specific performance against the vendors Shaukat and others.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is a bona fide purchaser of the land; that respondent was found innocent in three successive investigations but has been found guilty in two investigations; that vendors have been exonerated from the FIR and the challan has been submitted in the Court against the respondent; that there is not an iota of evidence on record against the respondent and that the application for cancellation of bail filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.
5. Respondent present in Court submits that in fact complainant joined hand with the vendors, withdrew the case against them and has falsely implicated him in this, case.
6. Learned Addl. A.G. Referred to the last paragraph of ing order, which was conditional one and submits that Muhammad Anwar, DSP investigated the case; that he has fulfilled the said requirement, which was required and noted by learned Judge and is mentioned in the last paragraph of the order, now the finding of the present I.O. Is that respondent posed himself as representative of Paragon Company by impersonation and got the sale-deed registered in his favour.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties/ This matter was dealt with by my learned brother Ali Nawaz Chohan, J. (as he then was) where respondent filed bail before arrest application. The facts of the case have been given therein and there is no need to repeat the same, In order to reach at a just conclusion I would like to reproduce paragraphs 9 and 10 of ing order which is as under:- "9. Tariq , inspector/I.O. Was further asked to produce the vendors and an adjournment was given by this Court to this effect. But the vendors were not produced and the -excuse taken before this Court is of bereavement in their family.
10. Now before this Court there are two basic pieces of evidence, which prima facie look favourable as far as the petitioner is concerned. These are report of the ASP which has, been further endorsed by the ASP (Investigation) and the statement of Local Commissioner who went to execute the document. The question of impersonation is still be established and the best persons for this purpose are the vendors, who have also to be investigated by the I.O/ASP (Investigation) but presently they are not available. This bail application has been lingering on, so, on the basis of two pieces of evidence made available on the file this Court feels appropriate to pass the following order. The bail of the petitioner is confirmed but this is subject to condition that in case ASP (Investigation) calls the vendors interrogates them and comes to the contrary view then what is already said in the two ' reports will be liable to cancellation and the other side can always make an application for cancellation of the bail. Therefore, this confirmation of the bail application is absolutely without prejudice to the right of cancellation as has been stated above." .
8. As far as paragraph 9 is concerned, it was especially mentioned that Tariq, Inspector/I.O. Was directed to produce the vendors and an adjournment was given but he did not produce them.
Thereafter the Court observed 4th if the I.O. Comes to the conclusion after recording some evidence that any impersonation has been committed by the respondent then earlier two reports in favour of the respondent would be liable to be cancelled and complainant will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the respondent. Learned Add!. A.G. Has gone through the finding of Ch, Muhammad Anwar, DSP. He has recorded statements of both the vendors. Both of them have fully implicated the present respondent in this case and they have become prosecution witnesses.
Respondent was granted conditional bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed and bail-granting order is hereby recalled.