Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmad Sabir, petition writer by profession and attached with the Courts of Vehari got registered a case F.I.R.. No, 29 dated 28.01.2008 under Section 506-B PPC at Police Station, Daneywal, district Vehari against Syed Zulqurnain Ali Shah and Syed Jahan Zaib Shah sons of Syed Bashir Hussain, Respondents No, 2 and 3 with an allegation that they extended life threats to him on account of some land dispute. Apprehending their arrest in the above said case the respondents/accused persons made an application for pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session, Vehari, which was made over to an Additional Sessions Judge and was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2008.
2. The petitioner/complainant has sought cancellation of anticipatory bail of the respondents/accused persons in terms of Section 497 (5) Cr.P.C. with the plea that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted extra ordinary relief to the accused p.ersons against the recognized legal principles and the case law governing the subject of anticipatory bail. Reliance was placed on the cases Muhammad Siddique Vs. Imtiaz Begum and two others (2002 S.C.M.R 442), Afzal Ahmad Vs. State (2003 S.C.M.R 573) and Muhammad Anwar Vs. State (2006 P.Cr.L.J (Lahore) 181.
3. The allegation set up in the F.I.R., in brief, is that Syed Bashir Hussain Shah, father of the accused persons, made an agreement to sell a piece of land measuring 3 kanals 1 marlas and 6 Sarsahi located in Chak No, 7-WB urban area Vehari for a consideration of Rs, 10,00,000/- in favour of Sheikh Muhammad Mushtaq, complainant, by means of registered deed. After having paid the earnest money of Rs, 5,00,000/- out of total sale of Rs, 10,00,000/-, the complainant paid Rs, 1,00,000/- more on 29.06.2005 and got executed another deed in confirmation and in continuation of the earlier one dated 26.09.2005; that the other owners claiming interest in the disputed property filed a civil suit and obtained stay order as a result of which the sale-deed could not be executed and registered in favour of the complainant during the life time of the original owner; that on the death of Bashir Hussain Shah the property in his name including the subject-matter of the above said agreement to sell stood devolved upon the respondents/accused persons; that despite repeated requests, by the complainant the accused persons did not honour the commitment of their father; that the complainant filed a civil suit against them and obtained stay order apprehending his forcible ejectment from the disputed piece of land; that on 25.01.2008 the complainant was about to leave for his house after having arranged Quran Khawani in the disputed property when the respondents/accused persons confronted him in a car while armed with pistols; that all of them took out pistols and wanted to fire, but on the asking of PWs present at the spot they changed their minds and confined themselves to extending of threats only.
4. In the case in hand, there was a bona fide civil dispute between the complainant and the accused persons, which had already been laid before the Civil Court for adjudication. It was father of, the accused persons, who allegedly made an agreement to sell the disputed land in favour of the complainant. Real point in issue between the parties was/is as to whether or not the complainant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell executed by the father of accused persons. It appears that the petitioner/complainant reshaped the above said civil dispute and laid it before the Police Station during pendency of the civil suit before Civil Court. It is true that while deciding a bail, application before inception of trial the Court is not supposed to examine and analyze version and counter version put forth by both sides with the yardstick of trial Court, yet the Court is not expected to believe the version set up in the FIR as a gospel truth mechanically, blindly and without application of mind. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly took into consideration the civil litigation between the parties touching landed property, which persuaded the complainant to drag his opponents of civil dispute in another round of litigation on criminal side. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the, background of criminal case should not have weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing anticipatory bail to the respondents.
5. I have gone through the precedent cases and would say that the facts of this case are altogether different from that of the precedent cases. In case reported as 2003 SCM R 573 the bail allowed to a drug pusher had been cancelled by the Apex Court with an observation that a person spreading deadly poison i,e, narcotics in the society was not a kind of person who qualifies for grant of discretionary relief. In the second case (reported as 2002 SCM R 442) of attempted murder and house tress pass the Apex Court refused to entertain the request of accused for pre-arrest bail. The third precedent case reported as 2006 P.Cr. Reports 181 deals with a case of different nature. There was some dispute of tractor resulting in registration of a case on the charge of criminal breach of trust. The accused of that case had given an undertaking before Court to return the disputed tractor to the complainant of the case, but he backed out of his commitment and this Court declined him bail mainly on the ground that he refused to honour his words. In the case in hand, the accused persons did not make any commitment before the Civil Court or Criminal Court in favour of the complainant and therefore, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel is of no avail to the complainant.
6. For what has been stated above the impugned bail granting order cannot be termed as arbitrary, whimsical or against the case law governing the subject of anticipatory bail. I, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine.