1. Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner/complainant Aslam Pervaiz son of Zawar Hussain seeks cancellation of bail before arrest granted to Gul Zamin Khan son of Mera Khan Respondent No, 2 (accused) by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge Mian Channu vide order dated 30.5.2007 in case FIR No, 91-07 dated 23.03.2007, registered under Sections 365/420/468/471 PPC at Police Station City Mian Chunnun District Khanewal.
2. According to FIR, the assertion of the complainant Aslam. Pervaiz is that in October, 2005 the present respondent/accused prepared forged documents of his son Arslan Ali minor and took him to England where the petitioner demanded an amount of rupees twenty lacs as "Tawan from him.
2. The respondent/accused allegedly refused to hand over the custody of Arslan Ali to him inspite of repeated demands. In this way the Respondent No, 2/accused committed the offences punishable U/Ss. 365/420/468/471 PPC.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant in support of this petition submits that the learned trial Court has not properly examined the record of the ease while granting pre-arrest bail of the accused/respondent. There was no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involved the accused. The going of Arslan to London is not disputed. Further submits that the local police has not investigated the matter properly.
4. 4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the offences mentioned in the FIR are not made out. Even from the contents of the FIR and investigation of the case no offence is made out against the respondent. Further submits that no forgery has been proved against the respondent. Submits that, in fact, the real sister of the petitioner namely Mst.
5. Zareena Firdous is wife of the accused/respondent Gul Zamin and due to the family dispute, the respondent was involved in this case with mala fide intention of the petitioner by dragging the accused/respondent before different forums. Finally, he submits that there is no illegality in the order of the learned trial Court in granting pre-arrest-bail to the accuser'. Adds that the respondent has been regularly joining the investigation while appearing before the Court on each and every date of hearing.
6. 5.I have heard the arguments of learned court for the parties and perused the record.
7. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed mainly the two points. Firstly, that Arslan was abducted by the accused respondent in the year 2005 and was taken to England showing Arslan as his son. Secondly, that respondent had shown the parentage of Arslan as Gul Zamin instead or Aslam Parvaiz petitioner in the passport, therefore, he has committed forgery.
8. 7.In this case the alleged occurrence had taken place in 2005, whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 23.3.2007, with the delay of about 2-years which has not been even properly explained by the petitioner/complainant.
9. 8.On the asking of the Court, the learned counsel stated that date of birth of Arslan is 25.4.1988. He submits that when Arslan was kidnapped by the respondent/accused his age was 17-years. It is mind boggling that how a 17-years old young man was abducted and taken to England by Air from Islamabad Airport to the Heathrow Airport London without his consent. All and sundry know that a number of agencies are deployed on the Airports and passengers has to pass many check points on the Airports. Strangely, if said young man was being abducted by his paternal uncle (Phoopha) against his will and wish he had more than hundred chances to raise hue and cry while passing through different places and, thus, respondent and his wife could have been arrested/apprehended there and then. The slumber of the petitioner for a long time to move the machinery of law is another factor which speaks volume about the hollowness of the allegations.
10. 9.As far as the fabrication of the documents is concerned I have perused the documents produced by learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. According to "B" Form which alleged to have been signed or thumb marked by Mst. Zareena Firdous the real paternal aunt of the abductee Arslan, has not been found to be correct by the report of Finger Print Expert during the investigation conducted by the FIA, in another case. The said report is on the record of this file as Annexure "R-2".
11. Some more documents have also been produced by the learned counsel for respondent from which it appears that some altercation had also taken place between the parties at London for which the matter was reported to the police, wherein, no allegation of abduction was levelled against the respondent. Had it been so, the London police would, not have let of the respondent as the authorities in London are very sensitive regarding the fundamental rights and liberty of citizens.
12. 10.I have noticed that during the pendency of this petition, the conduct of both the learned counsel for the parties was vary fair and they tried their level best for conciliation between the parties and even last attempt was mads by learned counsel for the petitioner in doing so, in Court today, but, the petitioner was adamant to reconcile the matter.
13. 11.From the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that fight is going on between the parties due to false egos and family differences which are not being settled and vengeances are being satisfied through the machinery of law.
14. 12.Another factor, which shows mala fide on the part of the petitioner/complainant is that according to the learned counsel for respondent that petitioner and his wife were deported on the complaint of respondent and his wife and this was the main grievance which resulted in lodging of the FIR and other litigation. The accused/respondent was granted pra-arrest bail from the lower Court on 30.5.2007 and the challan in this case was submitted on 20.12.2007. The charge has been framed in this case on 27.6.2008 by the learned trial Court.
15. 13.The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently stated that the petitioner has been appearing on each and every date of hearing but the petitioner/complainant was reluctant to produce his evidence and was dragging the respondent/accused unnecessarily. Further submits that due to this case, the petitioner could not go back to London. The assertions made by the learned counsel for respondent was not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, it appears that the only purpose of the petitioner/complainant is to procrastinate the matter with a view to prevent the respondent to proceed for England and this petition for cancellation of bail has been filed as a clever device to achieve the goal.
16. Apart from the fact that once the bail granted by a competent Court of law it cannot be recalled unless some strong and exceptional circumstances are shown regarding its cancellation. There is no allegation against the respondent of misusing the concession of bail,' tampering with evidence or abscondence. Reliance can be placed on 1981 P.Cr.LJ. 803; PLD 1984 Lahore 38; PLJ 1976 SC 204; PLD 1986 SC 118; 1985 SCM R 979; 1985 SCM R 979; 2007 SCM R 1382 and 1546 and 2006 SCM R 1292.
17. 12-A. In this case the trial has commenced and even if the case for cancellation of bail is made out, it should not be cancelled at this stage. See judgments of the honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 1989 SC 585, PLD 1985 SC 1691.
18. 14.For what has been discussed above, ease for cancellation of bail is made out against the respondent, hence this petition being mis-conceived and devoid of force is hereby dismissed.
19. 15.However, it is clarified that the observations made in the order are tentative in nature and the trial Court would proceed, with the matter without being influenced by this order, in any manner.