2008 P Cr (PLP)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

Petitioner seeks confirmation for ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him vide order dated 17-3-2008 in case F.I.R. No.400 dated 27-12-2007, registered under section 406/420/506, P.P.C. at Police Station Masti Gate, Lahore.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he struck the bargain of his shop with the complainant against a consideration of Rs.52 lacs out of which he paid Rs.50 lacs in cash to the petitioner and it was agreed upon between the parties that remaining consideration of Rs.2 lacs will be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed. It is alleged that accused petitioner is neither receiving the remaining consideration nor is transferring the shop to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner with a delay of one year and four months: He further submits that from the bare reading of the F.I.R. no offence is constituted against the petitioner and the civil dispute regarding sale of a shop has been converted into a criminal offence with mala fide intention and ulterior motive only to pressurize the petitioner. The civil litigation in respect of the alleged agreement to sell is pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the Civil Court is the only forum for determination of such-like disputes. The investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and sending him to jail would not strengthen the prosecution case. He has relied upon Mirza Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2007 YLR 1380 and Akram Ali v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 148.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail application submits that the complainant and the police have no mala fide to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case. The Investigating Officer has found the petitioner guilty during the investigation and the documents subject-matter of the case are yet to be recovered from the petitioner, as such, he is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.

5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been found guilty during the investigation. The version of the complainant, set forth in the F.I.R., was supported by the independent witnesses. The petitioner has in fact executed agreement to sell who failed to return the earnest money and is guilty of the offence.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. Record shows that petitioner executed and agreement to sell the shop for a consideration of Rs.52 lacs on the basis of which the complainant has filed a suit in the Civil Court which is still pending and the fate of the aforesaid agreement to sell will be determined by that Court in accordance with law after recording the evidence of the parties. The registration of the present case appears to be with mala fide and civil dispute had been converted into criminal offence. Non-compliance of agreement to sell does not constitute any offence. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature for the purchase and sale of shop and sending the petitioner to jail would not strengthen prosecution case any more as nothing was to be recovered from him. Even otherwise there is a delay of about one year and four months in lodging the F.I.R. which is very significant and possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.

7. For what has been discussed above, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-180/L Pre-arrest bail allowed.