FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---By this single order, I am going to dispose of the two bail applications filed on behalf of applicants namely (i) Kamran Ahmed Siddiqui and (ii) Abdul Jabber (BA No, 887/2017, which is pre-arrest bail under section 498, Cr.P.C.) as well as applicants namely (i)
Muhammad Mubeen and (ii) Muhammad Moose (BA No, 1040/2017, which is post arrest bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.). Both the bail applications are dealt-with simultaneously because both bail applications are based on one and the same FIR. In the said FIR, the complainant Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini lodged FIR No, 263/2017 against the applicants of later bail application at PS Sachal, Karachi under sections 471, 202, 447, 468, 467 & 34, P.P.C.
2. The learned advocates for the applicants and the learned Prosecutor enjoyed the full opportunity of addressing the Court. I have considered their submissions and gone through the record of the case. From whatever said and produced before me, I have observed as under;
(a) The allegations against the applicants are that they had taken possession of Plot No, CM-65 of Gawalior Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi which allegedly belongs to complainant and they have managed and prepared false and fabricated documents of the said plot and raised construction upon it. It is also alleged that when the complainant party contacted the accused persons, they annoyed and issued threats of murder and also warned them not to visit the said plot, otherwise they would not be spared.
(b) It is worth mentioning that there are no allegations against accused Kamran and Jabbar (accused of pre-arrest bail No, 887/2017) in FIR and their names appeared in the Final Report only.
The allegation against accused Jabbar is that he is the witness of the agreement of sale, while accused, Kamran is the purchaser of plot. Both the parties are claiming ownership of the plot in question as both are in possession of documents signed by the same 'Administrator', who was appointed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies.
(c) It has also come on the record that the said plot was transferred in the name of Kamran on 05- 01-2014 and NOC from the society was issued on 13-08-2015. Subsequently, accused Kamran sold out the said plot to accused Mubeen (accused of post arrest bail No, 1040/2017 on 17-06-2015 and the said plot was transferred in his name on 24-08-2015, and the accused Jabbar signed the document as witness. It has also come on record that after purchasing, accused Mubeen raised construction and built a house in which he is residing with his family. The allegation against the applicant Mubeen and his father Moosa is that they have encroached upon the plot of complainant. Apparently, the only criminal folly of accused Moosa is that he is residing in the house built on the plot in question with his son.
(d) In my humble view, if there is any malpractice involved in this case then the same was done during a period when the said society was under the administration of Registrar Cooperative Societies through the 'Administrator' and the officials are also involved in the matter, as construction of house on the plot cannot be done in a society without the active connivance of the administration of the society. I am of the view that if such is the position then the matter is required to be referred to Anticorruption Establishment. In the existing position of affairs, it is a fit case of further inquiry.
(e) In the instant matter, complainant and accused persons both are claiming to be owner of the plot, as such both of them are claiming that they are members of Gawalior Cooperative Housing Society. It is worth noting that under section 54 (b) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in case of any dispute between members or past members or 'persons so claiming', the matter is to be referred to Registrar or his nominee for decision through arbitration. I am of the view that unless a decision of the Registrar comes that the accused persons are not the member and/or past member of the society, the matter again requires further enquiry and without approaching to the Registrar, lodging of FIR cannot be considered as free from malice.
3. The upshot of the above discussion is that not only a case of confirmation of bail to the applicants (i) Kamran Ahmed Siddiqui and (ii) Abdul Jabbar (BA No, 887/2017) is made out but also the applicants
(i) Muhammad Mubeen and (ii) Muhammad Moosa (B.A. No, 1040/2017) are entitled for post-arrest bail. Resultantly interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants (i) Kamran Ahmed Siddiqui and
(ii) Abdul Jabbar is confirmed on the same terms and condition, while the applicants (i)
Muhammad Mubeen and (ii) Muhammad Moosa (BA No,1040/2017) are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety of Rs,50,000/- each up to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court. I have already decided both the bail applications through my short order dated 26-07-2017 and the above are the reasons for the same.