' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.---The petitioners namely Liaqat Ali, Peeran Ditta, Muhammad Shafi Mehar, Farzand Ali, Bashir Ahmad, Allah Ditta, Rasheed Ahmad, Ghulam Rasool, Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Hussain have applied for bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No, 184/2011, dated 22-9-2011, offence under sections 471, 420, 468, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Theh Shikham District Kasur.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners as per contents of F.I.R. Is that the complainant and his relatives had purchased land measuring 118-Acres and 4-Kanals situated at Mouza Kotli Rai Abu Bakar vide agreement to sell executed on 2-5-2011 for a consideration of Rs,9,48,00,000 in presence of witnesses namely Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Bashir Ahmad. An amount of Rs,3,97,70,566 was paid to the petitioners and others as earnest money while remaining consideration amount was settled to be paid by the complainant after completion of the sale-deed. The petitioners delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and till date they have neither executed the sale-deeds nor they have returned the earnest money. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that about the land in question litigation is already pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the petitioners have also lost their case from this Court but this fact was not told to the complainant at the time of execution of agreements to sell or receiving the earnest money to tune of Rs,3,97,70,566. The petitioners and others in order to grab the money have committed fraud with the complainant, hence this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case, who are innocent and having no nexus with the alleged offence and the story narrated in the F.I.R. Is totally false and frivolous as only after two days of agreement to sell dated 2-5-2011 another agreement to sell dated 4-5-2011 was reduced into writing between the parties in which all the facts including pendency of case before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan have been duly mentioned; that there is delay of six months in lodging the F.I.R. For which no explanation is forthcoming; that possession of part land measuring 38-Acres 4-Kanals and 1-Marla has already been handed over to the complainant party under the arbitration agreement in lieu of consideration amount; that the local police has declared the petitioners to be innocent and the ingredients of sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are lacking in this case and at the most offence under section 420, P.P.C. Would attract, which is bailable; that the petitioners are previously non-convict and non-record holder; and that the lodging of instant case in the peculiar circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner stated, is an attempt to humiliate and pressurize the petitioners. Learned counsel lastly argued that evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of documents and there is no apprehension of tampering with the same by the petitioners.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which can sparingly be extended in cases of peculiar circumstances but the petitioners could not point out any malice about their false implication in the instant case and there is sufficient incriminating material available on record to connect them with the commission of offence. Learned counsel for the complainant does not deny the execution of arbitration agreement, however submits that was another fraud with the complainant party. Also contends that about the land in question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted stay order but this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioners at the time of execution of agreements to sell and just to grab the huge amount from the complainant party, the petitioners have fraudulently executed the alleged agreements to sell.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. Although the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., however, there is a delay of more than six months in lodging the same. The petitioners have been declared innocent during the course of investigation. During the pendency of instant petition it was highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant party is in possession of part land purchased by them and vide order dated 23-5-2013 the Investigation Officer was directed to verify the stance taken by the petitioners.
In compliance of order of this Court, the Circle Officer, visited the spot and submitted his report dated 4-6-2013 before this Court in which it is mentioned that the complainant party is in possession of land measuring 38-Acres, 4-Kanals and 1-Marla and verified the report of concerned Patwari. Prima facie as per contents of F.I.R., the ingredients of sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case whereas the offence under section 420, P.P.C., is bailable in nature. The learned counsel for the complainant has not denied the arbitration agreement executed between the parties wherein it is clearly mentioned that against the earnest money received by the petitioners, the petitioners would hand over the possession of land measuring 38-Acres and 2-Kanals and in case they won the case before Supreme Court, they shall execute the sale-deed in favour of the complainant, otherwise, return the amount @ of Rs,6,75,000 per acre while it is also mentioned in the said arbitration agreement that agreement to sell dated 2-5-2011 regarding remaining land will be considered as cancelled. It is on the basis of said arbitration agreement, possession of the above referred land was handed over to the complainant party which was also verified by the Investigating Officer in his report dated 4-6-2013. In this backdrop, chances of false implication of the petitioner in the instant case, cannot be ruled out and prima facie the civil dispute seems to have been converted to the criminal offence. I find much weight in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence against the petitioners is in the shape of documents which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution/investigating agency and if the petitioners are admitted to bail there is no apprehension of their tampering with the prosecution evidence. Guidance in this behalf is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCM R 170).
7. In such circumstances, by sending the petitioners behind the bars, no useful purpose would be served. Hence, I am persuaded to accept this petition as a consequence whereof ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioners in terms of order dated 16-4-2013 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
' The observations above are only tentative in nature and the same will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial stage.