Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Through this application u/S. 498, Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No. 363, dated 10.7.2001, u/Ss. 380/468/419/420/471/PPC registered at Police Station Lower .Mall,. Lahore on the application of Imtiaz Khan in which it has been Alleged that Rana Muhammad Ashraf has entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant for the sale of plot measuring 2 kanal, 5 marlas in khasra No. 291 Khewat No. 790 entered in his name, through mutation No. 5218 within, the area of village Ajudia Pull now in the scheme of Muharhrrtad AH Johar Town and i.e No. 173/N/AP has been prepared and was pending with the LDA. According to t complainant Rana Muhammad Ashraf received total consideration of amount 7,00,000/- and executed irrevocable power-of-attorney in his favour; subsequently said Rana Muhammad Ashraf in connivance of Muhammad Hussain petitioner No. 2 who is clerk of LDA and Misbah Malik, Malik Rafique and Tariq Nasim have stolen the power-of-attorney of the complainant and got prepared a forged revocation deed of a general power-of-attorney and while committing fraud have sold the said plot to Kh. Muhammad Rafique petitioner No. 1.
2. learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Kh. Muhammad Rafique petitioner is bona i.e purchaser and has made payment of Rs. 7,10,000/- to Rana Muhammad Ashraf who has executed general power-of-attorney in his favour and the plot has been duly entered in his name by t LDA. It is further contended tat Muhammad Hussain Clerk of LDA was duty bound to produce the i.e before the Assistant Director irrespective of the mala i.e of the other co-accused. It is further, contended that if some fraud has been committed by Rana Muhammad Ashraf with the complainant can take his money back from him and can proceed against Rana Muhammad Ashraf but present petitioners cannot be treated as an accused persons in the FIR as Malik Rafique petitioner No. 1 had paid total consideration amount as bona i.e purchaser and Muhammad Hussain Clerk of LDA has no concern with the sale and purchase of plot by Rana Muhammad Ashraf to petitioner No. 1 or to the complainant. Lt is further contended that civil suit was filed by the complainant Imtiaz against Rana Muhammad Ashraf accused about the sale of the said plot which is still pending the FIR has been lodged with mala i.e intention and with ulterior motive to pressurize Rana Muhammad Ashraf and also the petitioner No. 1 restraining him from raising any construction on the said plot and the FIR is being used a$ a lever by the complainant for the recovery of his amount. It is a civil dispute which is being converted into a criminal offence. Even otherwise the offences are not punishable with death or transportation of life. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners hence the sending of the petitioners to jail will cause irreparable loss to their honour and reputation.
3. On the other had, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that the names of the petitioners have been mentioned in FIR and bail before arrest has been meant to protect the innocent citizens involved with mala fides. Intention. They have been found guilty being connived with Rana Muhammad Ashraf. The petitioner Muhammad Rafique is purchaser of the said property as beneficiary while Muhammad Hussain petitioner No. 2, had removed power-of-attorney from the i.e of the complaint. The allegations against them .Are of serious nature, thus they are not entitled to the grant of extra-ordinary relief by this Court.
4. learned State counsel has also opposed this application on the ground that the petitioners are named in the FIR with specific role and as such are not entitled to any relief by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
Admittedly, Rafique is purchaser of the said property from Rana Muhammad Ashraf. Muhammad Hussain is Clerk in LDA and only is duty bound to keep the i.e in his possession but no effective orders can be passed by him. The allegation against Rafique is that one revocation deed was prepared which was signed by. Him as a witness that revocation deed is for the cancellation of the power-of-attorney in favour of the complainant executed by Rana Muhammad Ashraf th original owner, lt has been purchased by the petitioner No. 1 that the said property is being made basis for the involvement of the petitioner Rafique in this case. If some fraud has been committed with the complainant' and the complainant has been deceived, only Rana Muhammad Ashraf may be responsible for that; but were signing of revocation deed as witness will not be sufficient to hold that Malik Rafique had deceived the complainant in connivance with the said Rana Muhammad Ashraf. On the other had there is a very strong reason that Rafique has made payment of Rs.
7,00,000/- for the purchase of said plot. Had there been anything in the notice of Rafique that the plot has already been sold by Rana Ashraf he should not have paid a single penny to Rana Ashraf and would not have purchased the said plot, it seems that Rafique has purchased the plot for consideration and is bona i.e purchaser and is being involved with mala fides in this case by the complainant in order to restrain him from raising the construction on the said plot are further disposal of the said plot and in order to compel him. To settle a dispute with Rana Ashraf for handing over possession of the plot to the complainant. Similarly, Muhammad Hussain Clerk has been only ailette that he has removed the original general power- of-attorney from the i.e and has placed there photo-copy of said power-of-attorney. It is the practice in the LDA that the power-of- attorney is not placed on the record; rather certified copy of the power-of-attorney is placed on the record and the original documents are kept by the owners in their possession. There was no reason for the removal of the general power-of- attorney by the said Muhammad Hussain as according to the complainant himself revocation deed of the said power-of- attorney has been prepared subsequently by Ashraf and before the sale-deed in favour of Rafique. Prima facie involvement of both the petitioners seems to be with mala i.e intention and with ulterior motive. No role prima facie can be ascribed to them for deceiving the complainant as they are not alleged to have received a single penny from the complainant. They were not owners of the plots and were not party in the earlier agreement between the complainant and Rana Ashraf. This Court is custodian of the rights of the people and the bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens. I am not in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that recoveries are yet to be effected. No recovery has been shown to be effected during the investigation. Refusal of bail before arrest will definitely cause irreparable loss and injury to the honour and reputation of the petitioners which will not be restorable even if the petitioners are acquitted later on from the charge. This Court has to keep in mind the consequences of refusal of bail before arrest which is meant to protect the innocent citizens and cannot decide against the innocent citizens merely on the grounds urged by the complainant. Ad-interim bail before arrest already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.