' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Riaz Hussain petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 109, dated 2-2-2008 registered under sections 420/468/ 471, P.P.C. At Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore on the application of Shaukat Ali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely on account of mala fide of the complainant. He further submits that in fact the petitioner was not the employee of Mian Ijaz Ahmad co- accused, but he had been serving in Wapda at Multan at the time of the alleged occurrence and he was retired from service in 2000; that being employee of the Wapda the petitioner had no concern with the disputed property; that the petitioner was not the beneficiary and even according to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. He had not received even a single penny from the complainant; that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no offence is made out against him and is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And being employee of Mian Ijaz Ahmad co-accused as site Manager had defrauded the complainant by pointing out the disputed plot at the time of occurrence and subsequently he disclosed to the complainant that Mian Ijaz Ahmad co-accused had transferred the above-said plots to his relatives; that during the investigation a Punchayat was convened and an agreement between Mian Ijaz Ahmad and Rai Shaukat Ali was executed in which it was promised by Mian Ijaz Ahmad to provide alternate land to the complainant and the petitioner was a witnesses to that agreement, but Mian Ijaz Ahmad did not fulfil the obligation according to the above-said agreement and even the documents produced in this behalf were found forged. It is further submitted that again compromise was effected between Mian Ijaz Ahmad and Rai Shaukat during Court proceedings and Mian Ijaz Ahmad offered the plots situated in Judicial Colony to the complainant and documents concerning the said plots were produced in Court but during inquiry those documents were also found forged and case F.I.R. No,361 was registered against Qasim Ijaz and Mian Ijaz Ahmad; that in the light of the above-said facts and circumstances as the petitioner had joined Mian Ijaz Ahmad on each and every occasion of committing fraud with the complainant, he is fully connected with the alleged offence and is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
4. Arguments heard and record perused. Even if at this stage the contents of the F.I.R. Are considered to be true, it is found that the petitioner was only employee of Mian Ijaz Ahmad co- accused, who along with Mian Ijaz Ahmad was alleged to have pointed out the site which was purchased by the complainant. Subsequently the petitioner himself as per complainant's own version had disclosed that the disputed plots which had been sold to the complainant were transferred by Mian Ijaz Ahmad to his relatives. So far as second agreement between the parties i.e, Mian Ijaz Ahmad and Rai Shaukat Ali is concerned the petitioner was the only witness to that. From the entire record and the evidence collected by the prosecution it is no where mentioned that the petitioner had ever received any amount from the complainant and prepared any forged document in connection with the disputed plots. He has joined the investigation of this case and is not required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner was also not beneficiary of the transaction between Mian Ijaz Ahmad and the complainant. It was only Mian Ijaz Ahmad who had received the amount and allegedly defrauded the complainant. Keeping in view the above circumstances prima facie the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.
Hence this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner 'vide order, dated 7-7-2008 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.