' Petitioner Bashir Ahmad through the instant petition has sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by Mr. Irfan Ahmad Saeed, learned Additional Sessions Mudge, Kasur vide his order dated 20-10-2003 in case F.I.R. No.417 registered under sections 420/465/468/471, P.P.C. With Police Station, Sadar Raiwind, District Kasur on 7-10-2003.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that on the petitioner's application the said case has been registered against respondents Nos.1 to 3. He in the same has accused them that they on 21-2-2002 had got registered the forged trust deed in respect of Baal Mosque situated in Awami Grain Market, Kot Radha Kishan, Tehsil and District Kasur in their name
3. These respondents applied for pre-arrest bail to the Sessions Court, Kasur.
4, The aforesaid Court vide its order dated 20-10-2003 had extended them such relief.
5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has sought for the cancellation of the same by way of the instant application.
6. It has been contended on his behalf that these respondents have committed heinous crime by getting registered the trust deed in their favour in respect of the aforesaid mosque, hence, they ought not to have been extended such extraordinary discretionary relief; that they according to the inquiry held in the matter have been found to have forged the Waqf deed in respect of the said mosque in their favour; that the learned Additional Sessions Mudge has not properly looked into the matter while extending them the relief prayed for by them; and that mere pendency of civil litigation between the parties could not make the registration of the case against them as mala fide and malicious on his part and so the learned Additional Sessions Mudge has erred in viewing the matter from that angle. In support of such submissions reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lahore 178.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by his side and gone through the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
8. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Mudge while allowing pre-arrest bail to these respondents has been influenced by the fact that the offence under sections 420/465/471, P.P.C., is bailable while the one under section 468, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable; and that civil litigation is going on between the parties in respect of the mosque and it was prior to the registration of the present case and in these circumstances the possibility of their involvement in the case on account of mala fide cannot to be ruled out.
9. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner has instituted a declatory suit against these respondents in the Court of learned Senior Civil Mudge, Kasur.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the copy of the plaint in that suit. The same shows that the petitioner has sought declaration of Waqf deed registered on 21-2-2002 in favour of these respondents and on the basis of same registration No.RS/KD/49 dated 15-4-2002 to be false, frivolous, forged and fictitious and so, liable to cancellation and they have no concern with the said mosque and permanent injunction by way of consequential relief restraining them from interference in the management of the mosque and occupying the same.
11. The said plaint appears to have been drafted on 28-7-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the suit is still pending before the civil Court. The instant case was registered on the petitioner's application on 7-10-2003. It, thus, was after the institution of that suit.
12. The above position clearly shows that the petitioner himself had gone to the civil Court seeking declaration in respect of Waqf deed in question to be forged and fictitious. Similar is his allegation in the instant F.I.R.
13. The said question is subjudice before the competent civil Court. It is to be decided there from that if the said Waqf deed is genuine one or forged or fictitious as is the case of the petitioner.
14. In view of this position, the case against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had required further inquiry into the fact that if they had forged the deed in question. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
15. The learned Additional Sessions Mudge, therefore, has not at all erred in taking the pendency of the civil suit between the parties to be indicative of possibility of existence of mala fide on the part of the petitioner/complainant in the involvement of these respondents in the case. He, therefore, has justifiably allowed them the relief of pre-arrest bail.
16. It may also be mentioned here that it has not been controverted by the petitioner's side that the offence under sections 420/465 and 471, P.P.C. Is bailable while the one under section 468, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable.
17. I, therefore, find that the order recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Mudge, Kasur for allowing pre-arrest bail to these respondents neither suffers from any perversity nor wrong. The case-law Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lahore 178 referred to by his side, therefore, is not at all applicable to his case inasmuch as that there was no question of grant or otherwise of pre-arrest bail or the effect of mala fide on the consideration of such question while position in the instant case was such.
19. I, therefore, find that no case for cancellation of pre-arrest bail to these respondents has been made out.
20. The petition, therefore, is without any force. The same is dismissed in limine.