1. IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. --- Through this petition under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of respondent No. 1 allowed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.7.2009 in case F.I.R.. No. 338/2009, dated 25.6.2009 for the offences under Sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
2. Registered at Police Station Mozang, Lahore.
3. Brief facts of prosecution case as penned in the F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Hanif filed an application before the Police Station Mozang with the allegation against respondent No.. 1 that he got transferred Suzuki Mehran in his name while he was driver of his late brother Mian Muhammad Jahangir, Advocate, this fact came into the knowledge of complainant when he contacted the Excise & Taxation Office. Hence this case.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that bail before arrest has been confirmed by the Trial Court without considering the criteria laid down by the superior Courts for grant of bail before arrest. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has mentioned that car was lying in the house of Muhammad Jehangir/deceased and it is in the possession of petitioner. It is contended that possession of the car was not moot point, the moot point was that whether the documents are genuine or fabricated. It is contended that respondent No. 1 had tried to commit fraud and documents have been prepared by him and same are to be recovered from respondent during investigation and person of respondent is required to the Investigating Agency, hence the bail may be cancelled.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 assisted by learned Law Officer vehemently opposed the petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is not denied by learned counsel for petitioner that car is in possession of the petitioner who is real brother of Muhammad Jahangir deceased. It is also not denied that respondent No. 1 has not contested the cancellation of car from his. Name back to the name of Mian Muhammad Jahangir to grab the car of deceased by the respondent No. 1 but he disclaimed his ownership on the basis of said, documents. On the other hand the claim of respondent No. 1 is that his mother Mst. Farzana has contracted marriage with Mian Muhammad Jehangir, Advocate (deceased), Nikah Nama has also been placed on record by respondent as Annexure "f", according to which the Nikah was, performed between mother of respondent No. 1 and deceased on 28.5.2001. Mst.Farzana mother of respondent No. 1 was earlier married and out of earlier marriage she had respondent No. l and one daughter. It is also not denied by learned counsel for petitioner that Mst.Farzana, respondent No. 1 and other family members were residing in the same house owned by Mian Muhammad Jahangir, Advocate (deceased); after the death of the Mian Muhammad Jahangir, Advocate on 6.9.2009 a civil suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for declaration of oral gift which was made allegedly by Mian Muhammad Jehangir in favour of respondent No. 1 in the presence of witnesses namely Imran Yousaf and Choudhary Muhammad Ahsan, Advocates of this Court and they had submitted affidavits in this connection, but the dispute has arisen between petitioner and respondent No. 1 regarding the property owned by Mian Muhammad Jahangir deceased a civil suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 prior to the registration of present case in which both the parties claimed that they are owners of the house previously owned by Mian Muhammad Jahangir deceased.; The possibility of false implication of respondent in the present case cannot be ruled out in order to pressurize the respondent No. 1. And other family members to withdraw their claim regarding the ownership of said house, and other assets left by the deceased. It is also claimed by learned counsel for petitioner that a criminal case has been registered against respondent No. 1 about the preparation of forged Nikah Nama, so the petitioner seems to making hectic efforts to put pressure upon respondent No. 1 and other family members to vacate the house and also withdraw the suit. In such circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed bail before arrest of respondent No. 1 as no useful purpose can be served by sending respondent No. 1 behind the bars, when respondent No. 1 has disowned the transfer in his favour, so far no evidence has been collected by the prosecution that the said document which are yet not in possession of police ^/were prepared by respondent No. 1 as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 disowns that any document was prepared and sent to Excise & Taxation Department. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition the same stands dismissed.