' ASIF SAEEQ KHAN KHOSA, J. -- This petition filed by Ayaz Ahmad Khan petitioner is directed against the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi whereby pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi on was cancelled in case F.I.R. No, 28 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Attock on 23.12.2009 in respect of offences urlder Sections 161/409/ 420, PPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The allegation levelled in the above-mentioned F.I.R, is that the petitioner and his co-accused had fraudulently got some property of. one Dost Muhammad Khan transferred in their favour with the connivance of some revenue officials to the detriment of Sohail Khan complainant and others who were likely to inherit the said property in the event of death of the said Dost Muhammad Khan.
After his implication in this criminal case the petitioner had been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi on 26.04.2010 but through the impugned order the petitioner's pre-arrest bail was cancelled by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient material was available on the record of investigation to establish that the transactions in issue were complete and genuine and this aspect of the matter had not only been confirmed during the initial investigation but the same had also been reported by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Attack. He has further argued that the complainant had obtained copies of the relevant transactions during the lifetime of the vendor but he had taken no action in that regard till the death of the vendor and the present criminal proceedings had been launched by him after the vendor's death with ulterior motives, It has also been argued by him that during his lifetime the vendor had never agitated against the relevant transactions and no evidence had been collected during the investigation that the thumb-impressions of the vendor on the relevant documents were not genuine. He has further maintained that in the last seventeen years before his death the vendor had alienated large chunks of his land in favour of different persons through thirty-one different transactions but none of those transactions, other than the transactions in issue in the present criminal case, had ever been challenged before any Court or forum by anybody. He has lastly submitted that the learned Trial Court had admitted the petitioner to pre-arrest bail on the basis of very sound reasons and, therefore, the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court was. not justified in cancelling the petitioner's bail. As against that the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the relevant transactions were fraudulent and fake; sufficient material had become available on the record of investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences; the all-important aspect of mala fide on the part of the complainant party and the police had never been asserted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court for the purpose of seeking pre-arrest bail; the allegations levelled against the petitioner also attract the offences under Sections 466 and 467, PPC which attract the prohibitory clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; and, therefore, the case against the petitioner is not a fit case for his admission to pre-arrest bail. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has supported the case of the prosecution as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant and has also prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and after going through the relevant record of this case with their assistance it has been found by us that the reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi for admitting the petitioner to pre-arrest bail were quite sound and convincing whereas the learned Judge-in-Ghamber of the High Court had passed the impugned order merely upon conjectures and surmises not grounded in the material available on the record. The learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court had apparently misread the record in observing that the petitioner had never asserted the all-important aspect of mala fide on the part of the complainant party and the police. We find that this aspect critical to a petition seeking pre-arrest bail had not only been asserted by the petitioner in his application for bail submitted before the learned Trial Court but the petitioner's contention in that regard had also found a specific mention in the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, ln the said order the learned Trial Court had not only referred to the merits of the petitioner's case for pre- arrest bail but had also prima facie found an apparent lack of bona fide in the matter on the part of the complainant party, It had also been observed by the learned Trial Court in the same order that initially the investigating officer had exonerated the petitioner from any criminal liability in the matter but later on the said opinion had been changed by the same investigating officer without collecting any fresh material in that connection. The record of this case shows that even the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Attock had conducted an inquiry into the matter and had found the relevant transactions of alienation of property to be quite in order, It is admitted at all hands that four civil suits filed by the rival parties against each other revolving around the same transactions of alienation of property are already sub judice before the local Civil Court and, thus, presuming any criminal intent on the part of the petitioner in that regard before any final outcome of that civil litigation would amount to putting the cart before the horse. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted before the learned Trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required by the investigating agency at this stage, In these circumstances depriving the petitioner of his liberty at this stage merely for wreaking vengeance of the complainant party would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The petitioner had joined the investigation and nothing was to be recovered from his custody at the time when he was admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Trial Court. There had never been any allegation against the petitioner regarding, any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail and the State had never sought cancellation of the petitioner's bail, In these peculiar circumstances of this case we have felt convinced that the learned Trial Court was quite justified in admitting the petitioner to pre-arrest bail and, therefore, the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court ought not to have cancelled his bail.
5. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 733-CB of 2010 is set aside to the extent of Ayyaz Ahmad Khan petitioner and the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi is restored to his extent.