Rana Muhammad Farooq (Petitioner No, 1) and Khadim Hussain (Petitioner No, 2) seek bail before arrest in case FIR No, 318/08 U/Ss. 419/420/467/468/471 PPC registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2. The grounds taken are that the case against the petitioners suffered from mala-fides; that the petitioners had no nexus with the alleged fraud, forgery and impersonation; that the petitioners have been involved with a view to exact money; that they were at all events innocent and entitled to bail. It was also argued that FIR No, 304/08 having been lodged earlier at the instance of purchaser who had moved an application to the DDO(R), the present FIR was unwarranted at law and that Rana Muhammad Farooq, Petitioner No, 1, who was only a deed writer, had not signed any of the alleged documents in any manner, could not be connected. As to Khadim Hussain Petitioner No, 2, it was argued that he was only a property dealer and had delivered two cheques to the complainant of FIR No, 304/08 to compensate him which act, according to learned counsel, showed his bona fides.
3. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the grant of bail. It was specifically pointed out by them that the petitioners were so desperate that they committed forgery even before this Court while submitting a copy of the registered deed at pages 29 to 37 with their petition, in that, on the last page on the left side, the stamp of Muhammad Shahid, Deed Writer was shown whereas the same document was produced before the police, and there the signatures of Rana Muhammad Farooq were also appearing with stamp. The raison d'etre of the document was that the petitioners cleverly tried to exclude their role giving the impression that they were not instrumental to the fabrication and false attestation of the aforesaid deed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record observantly, I find that the necessary details given in the FIR show and show clearly that the petitioners were involved all along.
During investigation, their role was established. The police also found that Rana Muhammad Farooq was a mastermind and was expert in preparing bogus and fabricated identity cards.
According to tire FIR, both the petitioners were specifically named. Prima facie they belong to a gang of cheaters and are expert in forging documents. In the present case, Mst. Rukkaya Abbas was a widow who was murdered in 1997 vide FIR No, 79/97 of Thana City Jalalpur Jattan. At that time, she had only one son Rizwan Khan aged 9 years. Firstly bogus identity cards were prepared, then General Power of Attorney was bolstered up and thereafter, the plot belonging to the deceased widow was sold away. Khadim Hussain tried to wriggle out by delivering cheques. Those cheques were, however, dishonoured. It appears, that he was gaining time. Had he not been involved in this case, there was no occasion for him' to have delivered the cheques. It appears that the accused petitioners never sincerely felt contrition or remorse for brazen faced act.
5. The petitioners had secured bail before arrest from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
They took three dates and on the fourth date, when time came for decision of the application on merits, they chose to disappear. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge then dismissed their application for non-appearance on 29.10.2008. Here, I must observe that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad should have decided the application on merits instead of dismissing the same in default and this is what the superior Courts have invariably held.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioners sought bail before arrest from this Court on 31.10.2008.
Thereafter, they ok six dates to argue the petition. Today was the seventh date and the application was argued with demur.
7. At bail stage, I must eschew from making a deeper appreciation of the material on record.
However, considering the conduct of the petitioners and the nature of allegations against them, I am not persuaded that they were entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of bail before arrest. I, therefore, dismiss their application.
8. It goes without saying that the observations made at the bail stage are always tentative in nature and would have no adverse effect in the course of trial.
9. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for future guidance through the learned District & Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.