' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---The petitioner seeks confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to him by this Court on 19-5-2009 in case F.I.R. No,61 of 2009, dated 11-2-2009 registered under sections 406, 506, P.P.C. At Police. Station Millat Park, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he in league with Badar Ali Bukhari, with whom complainant got married, was the witness of the Nikahnama and had concealed :certain facts about earlier marriage of said Badar Ali Bukhari and had defrauded the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out against the petitioner under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C., as the petitioner was merely witness of the Nikahnama, in fact no active role has been attributed to him. He further submits that there is five days unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. He further states that the petitioner has been mala fidely involved in this case by the complainant. He" also argues that as per allegations levelled against Badar Ali Bukhari and the present petitioner, no advertisement was ever published in the newspaper regarding proposal of the marriage and there is nothing on record which could prove this fact He lastly submits that co-accused Syed Rashid Akhtar Hashmi, who has been assigned identical role has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also granted bail as his case is at par with him and is not distinguishable in any manner.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is well nominated ih the F.I.R. With specific role and has been directly involved in the this case and had become witness of the Nikahnama in which fact of his previous marriage was concealed and had defrauded the complainant and was fully liable to be tried under the aforesaid provisions of law.
5. Learned DDPP also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was well aware at the time of marriage that said Badar, with whom complainant got- married was already a married person but even then he became party to the commission of offence. He further argues that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation and is therefore not entitled to the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DDPP and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, but I am afraid it has to be seen as to whether provisions of law under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried are attracted in this case or not. The petitioner is merely witness to the Nikahnama about which there is nothing on record which could prove the fact that they are the members of "Gang" which advertised in the newspaper regarding proposal of the marriages ' and subsequently fleeced innocent people. Investigating Officer present in the Court, has not been able to A establish anything in this regard. Moreover, the complainant or her other family members should have been vigilant enough at the time of marriage and they should have enquired fully as to whether person with whom she is entering into marital ties is already married person or not, because marriage being a sensitive issue and at the time of marriage every person fully enquire about the past of the person with whom marriage is being contracted, therefore, levelling allegations after the marriage are not justified for the reason that complainant should have thoroughly probed about the past and character of the person with whom she was going to be married but she had not, done so, rather levelled allegations against the petitioner much later than the marriage. This aspect of the case proves mala fides on the part of the complainant to falsey. Implicate him with the commission offence.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner is only witness to the said Nikahnama and in this regard other co- accused Syed Rashid Akhtar Hashmi, who was also witness to the Nikahnama, had already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, therefore, I am convinced that the case of the petitioner is at par with him and is not in any manner distinguishable with that of the co-accused, hence keeping in view the rule of consistency as well, the petitioner is A entitled to the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
8. Under the circumstances, I confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 19-5-2009 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties it the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court Mlaqa Magistrate. However, observations made by this Court shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial Court.
Petition stands disposed of