2004 PLP 2288 (YLR)

Petitioner Haji Javed Iqbal through the instant petition has sought for pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.18 dated 10-1-2004 originally registered under section 406/420, P.P.C. with Police Station Liaqat Abad, Lahore. Later on the police have added sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. in the same.

2. Briefly the facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R. are that Haji Javed Iqbal is an employee in the General Hospital, Lahore. He told the complainant that he has taken the car parking stand on lease in the name of Ghulam Rabbani. He asked him to join in the same as partner. He also showed him the stamp paper in the name of Ghulam Rabbani. In the same, the security amount stood mentioned as Rs.1,05000 and the period of the contract as three years. He was influenced by his such offer and so he on 4-1-2002 gave him Rs.40,000 in the presence of Qazi Mazhar Hussain and Muhammad Munir at the flat of the latter in Q-Block and got written a stamp paper from him. He when asked Haji Javed Iqbal to start the work of the car parking stand, he started putting him off. He after three months of the same came to know that Haji Javed Iqbal in order to have money from him had forged the stamp paper. Hence the case.

3. The petitioner apprehending his arrest at the hands of the police has applied for the relief of pre-arrest bail, to the Sessions Court, Lahore. His application for that purpose was dismissed on 16-2-2004 by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Tarar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. He, thereafter, has come to seek the same relief from this Court.

4. It has been argued on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in with mala fide intention on the part of the complainant on account of dispute over the money; that there is two years' delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the same has not reasonably been explained; that this long delay has left room for doubt qua the veracity of the version of the complainant in the F.I.R. against him; that even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments, the complainant's version as contained in the F.I.R. may be taken as true in it's entirety, the same attracts not his criminal liability in the matter and rather maximum the civil liability and the same also shows that the complainant with mala fide intention has tried to give colour to this liability of criminal nature; that in view of these facts, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt; that he has joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him; and that he is ready to join the investigation even in future, if so wanted by the police.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he has defrauded the complainant by showing him a forged stamp paper containing writing of a lease regarding the car parking stand at Center Plaza, Barkat Market, Lahore and then deceitfully received the amount of Rs.40,000 from him and so he sufficiently is connected with the act complained of; and that in any case, his criminal liability in the matter is there.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties with the help of the available record.

7. The above narration of the facts as contained in the F.I.R., goes to show that the complainant has given an amount of Rs.40,000 to the petitioner for partnership in the work of car parking stand. The petitioner, if at all the complainant's version may be believed to be true, had not used the alleged forged stamp paper for any other purpose except than receiving the amount from him (complainant).

8. This also shows that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, if any basically is related to the money allegedly given by the former to the latter.

9. This prima facie attracts the civil liability of the petitioner in the matter, if it may be so and not any criminal liability.

10. Besides than this, there is two years' delay in lodging the F.I.R. The complainant has simply mentioned in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has defrauded him by having forged the lease deed/stamp paper. According to him in the F.I.R., he came to know of the same about three months after the said transaction. It, thus apparently shows that there is no reasonable explanation of the remaining period of about 1-3/4 years of the delay in lodging the F.I.R. I would avoid to comment any further upon this aspect of the matter lest it may be prejudicial to either of the parties at any subsequent stage of the case.

11. Another fact, which is very important and relevant to be mentioned in this context is that as per the own showing of the complainant in the F.I.R., he has given Rs.40,000 to the petitioner on 4-1-2002 in the presence of Qazi Mazhar Hussain and Muhammad Munir in the flat situated at Q-Block of the latter by way of deed written on a stamp paper.

12. There is with the petition, the affidavit of Muhammad Munir, who is said to be the witness of the event of receiving money by the petitioner from the complainant. He in the same has deposed that no such transaction between the parties to the case had taken place at his flat on 4-1-2002. This is so, apparently in contradiction to the version of the complainant, as contained in the F.I.R.

13. Anyway, the above reasons have sufficiently rendered the case of the, petitioner to be one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same is, therefore covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

14. He admittedly has joined the investigation. It has not been shown by the State's side that if any recovery is to be effected from him.

15. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him on 5-3-2004, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.

16. He, however, shall join the investigation again, if and when so needed. N. H .Q./J-20/L Pre-arrest bail allowed.