' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner seeks cancellation of bail before arrest granted by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench vide impugned judgment, dated 6-2-2007.
2. Briefly stated facts as enumerated in F.I.R. No,130, dated 14-4-2006 at Police Station Kohsar District Islamabad are that complainant/petitioner Ch. Basharat Karim is a property dealer and respondent No,1 Muhammad Ashfaq Chandoor agreed to sell his House No,18, Street No,35, 1-9/4, Islamabad through agreement to sell dated 24-10-2004 for a consideration of Rs,70,00,000 (Rupees seventy lacs). Out of which Rs,60,00,000 (Rupees sixty lacs) were paid as advance money whereas Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs) were deposited by complainant/petitioner in ABN Amro Bank on behalf of respondent No,1 for loan secured against the said house. A general power of attorney was executed by respondent No,1 in favour of petitioner with regard to the said house. On 13-2-2006 respondent No,1 cancelled/revoked the power of attorney and on inquiry respondent No,1 offered Rs,5 lacs as profit and issued a cheque for Rs,75,00,000 (Rupees seventy-five lacs) drawn on Union Bank, Awan Arcade, Blue Area, Islamabad. On presentation the cheque was dishonoured, feeling aggrieved petitioner filed above mentioned F.I.R.
3. We have heard Messrs G.N. Gohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Tariq Mahmood, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Ch. Munir Sadiq, learned D.P.G. Punjab on behalf of State at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned High Court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective while granting bail to respondent No,1. According to him respondent No,1 is a Government servant in BPS-20 in Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission who agreed to sale his house and executed agreement to sell in favour of petitioner and his signatures on the alleged agreement are genuine. According to him it was not necessary to send the agreement to sell for comparison rather the Cheque No,4570670 issued by respondent No,1 should have been sent to F.I.A. For comparison.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 and State supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that respondent No,1 never entered into alleged agreement to sell and the signatures on the same were found forged by Handwriting Expert. He contended that his signatures were compared by Muhammad Ashraf Mali, Handwriting Expert who opined that the signatures were not genuine. He further contended that the disputed cheque was not issued to petitioner rather a blank cheque was given by respondent No,1 to petitioner with regard to some other matter thereafter amount and other columns were filled by petitioner with ulterior motive. He further contended a civil suit involving similar controversy has been filed by respondent No,1 which is pending adjudication.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and are of the view that the same is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. It is the settled principle of law that bail before arrest can be granted when the arrest of accused is with ulterior motive, mala fide or is due to false implication apparent on the face of record. Even the political rivalry has been considered to be an ingredient for the grant of pre-arrest bail as held in the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman and another PLD 1983 SC 82. It was for the first time, this Court in the case of Jamaluddin v. The State 1985 SCM R 1949 while granting pre-arrest bail took into consideration the factum of merits and the main reason which weighed with this Court was that he was empty-handed at the time of incident. Thereafter, this Court in the case of Meeran Bux v. The State and another PLD 1989 SC 347 set aside the order of the High Court cancelling pre-arrest bail of appellant on the ground that appellant did not cause fatal injury on the vital part of the body and also did not abuse the concession of bail in any manner for more than one year.
7. In the instant case, report from Handwriting Expert was obtained and the signatures of respondent No,1 on agreement to sell were found to be forged and that a civil suit with regard to same controversy is pending adjudication.
8. Examining the case of respondent on the above touchstone, we are persuaded to agree that arrest of the respondent No,1 would be with ulterior motive and would cause irreparable injury to his reputation and liberty. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any substance stands dismissed and leave to appeal refused.