ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 281, dated 07.04.2012 under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Millat Town, District Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that the complainant entered into an agreement dated .
12.08.2010 regarding the land measuring 2 Marlas for a consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The complainant asked Muhammad Saleem to purchase stamp paper and come to the house of Zaheer Ahmad Bhatti. The complainant alongwith Mubarak Ali and Zahid Islam went to the house of Zaheer Ahmad Bhatti and paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as advance. The receipt pf payment was also reduced into writing and the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was to be paid on 24.01.2012. The complainant asked Muhammad Saleem and the petitioner to transfer the property in his name after receiving remaining consideration amount. Fard was also taken and registered sale-deed was prepared. The petitioner stated that the registered sale-deed would be executed on the next date and then he denied to register the sale-deed in favour of. The complainant. Co-accused has disappeared, hence this F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant has filed a civil suit on 14.02.2012 for declaration through specific performance of the contract which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court regarding the same transaction in which he has admitted the payment and the instant F.I.R, was lodged on 07.04.2012; that the agreement in fact was executed between the complainant and Muhammad Saleem on 12.08.2010 whereas other agreement was executed between the petitioner and said Muhammad Saleem on 05.01.2010 and as such there was no question of forgery of any document at the behest of the petitioner. He relies on 1991 P.Cr.L.J 963 to contend that no recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner. Also argues that the instant F.I.R, was lodged just to blackmail and pressurize the petitioner, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by contending that there was no mention of purchased stamp paper in the record of stamp vendor and it was the petitioner who introduced Muhammad Saleem to complainant's house and gave Fard to him. The agreement was executed in the house of the petitioner. Further submits that the petitioner has failed to point out mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely involve him in the present case; that Muhammad Saleem co- accused has absconded and his whereabouts are only known to the petitioner; that the petitioner has prepared forged document and he is the real beneficiary. The learned D.P.G, while adopting arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that vide Zimni No. 6 dated 23.04.2012 and Zimni No. 11 the Investigating Officer has concluded that the petitioner has committed offence in connivance and active participation with Saleem, co- accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Prima facie the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R, with specific role ascribed to him. He appears to be the companion of said Muhammad Saleem, It also appears that the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged commission of crime and deprived the complainant from his valuable money. At present, the petitioner has failed to point out mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely involve him in the alleged crime which is sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail, is missing.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is dismissed and ad-interim anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.05.2012 is hereby re-called.