S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- This is on application for the cancellation of to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are accused tn case FIR No. 404 registered at P.S. Kotwali Jharig on 25.11.1993 under sections 420, 468, 418 and 471 P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, vide order dated 7.2.94 which has interfered with the investigation so their pre-arrest bail may be cancelled. He further contended that the document/agreement to sell dated 13.5.1993 was fabricated by the respondents with the active connivance of Waryam father of Muhammad Sarwar respondent No. 4 and there is evidence of Haq Nawaz Stamp Vendor to the effect that Kh. Haider Raza did not appear before him at the time of alleged execution of the agreement to sell dated 13.5.1993 and in the presence of this material the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, erred in law while confirming the pre-arrest bail of the respondents.
3. In the absence of the learned counsel for the State, the police officer present in Court submitted that the person of the respondents is not required by him. The case has been finally investigated and the challan is going to be submitted in Court. He also conceded this fact that no specimen signatures of Kh. Haider Raza were procured during investigation for comparison with the signatures on the disputed document i.e. Agreement to sell dated 13.5.1993.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a civil suit pending with respect to the specific performance of the contract on the basis of the agreement to sell referred above. As the matter is sub-judice before the civil court, the criminal case is not called for. In addition to that he submitted that when the police officer is not interested in further investigation, no useful purpose would be serve by cancelling their bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly the Investigating Officer is not interested in procuring physical person of the respondents. On the contrary, he submitted that he has prepared the challan and the case has been finalised. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter pertains to civil transaction, at the most it is for the criminal court to decide along with civil court about the genuineness of the agreement to sell referred above. I fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that at this belated stage no useful purpose would be served by cancelling their bail especially when they had not misused the concession of bail. The petition is devoid of force and is hereby dismissed.