2015 PLP 1582 (YLR)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

The petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.91 dated 6-10-2012 registered under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establish-ment, Multan.

2. The above case was registered in the wake of a complaint made by Muhammad Ihsan Qaiser to the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment Region, Multan to the effect that he is owner of a plot bearing No.506, situated at J-Block, Shah Rukan-e-Alam Colony, Multan. Muhammad Hashim, co-accused forged and fabricated the general power of attorney and got it registered with the Sub-Registrar City Tehsil and District Multan and on the basis thereof transferred the aforementioned plot to the present petitioner in collusion and connivance with the Sub-Registrar, the Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Estate and Land Management, Multan Development Authority (MDA). The aforesaid officials as well as the scribes of the documents in question were arraigned as co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely involved; that having purchased the plot for Rs.25,000,00, he cannot be dubbed as a cheater, rather he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice; that he got a site plan approved by MDA and raised constructions on the plot in question, after spending a huge amount of twelve lac rupees; that a civil suit for declaration instituted by the petitioner concerning the disputed plot is already pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge, Multan; that there is no allegation that the petitioner himself forged and fabricated documents; as such no role is ascribed to him with regard to the forgery of those documents; that pre-arrest bail of the co-accused Ahmad Mustanees was confirmed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28-6-2013, while the petition for the cancellation of his bail was dismissed by this Court; that co-accused Hafiz Abu Bakar was granted anticipatory bail, while Muhammad Hashim co-accused was also granted post-arrest bail by this Court. Therefore, by applying the principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Mr. Shaukat Ali Ghauri, Addl. Prosecutor General assisted by the complainant opposes this petition contending that the accused is nominated in the FIR; that he is not only the mastermind of the plan, but he also turns out to be the beneficiary of the fraud in that the plot in question was got transferred in his name; that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence and the petitioner has not been able to show that the prosecution launched against him is tainted with mala fides.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APG assisted by the complainant and also gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. As is evident from a bare look at the FIR, the alleged occurrence took place in the year, 2009, while the same was reported to the Anti-Corruption Establish-ment, Multan on 6-10-2012. Apparently, there is a delay of 2-/34 years', and the complainant has made no effort whatsoever to offer any explanation as to the inordinate delay. It is also established from the record that Abu Bakar co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court by the order dated 24-9-2013, and yet another co-accused Ahmad Mustanees was admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption vide order dated 28-6-2013. The complainant moved an application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeking to cancel his bail. However, his application was dismissed by this Court by the same order dated 24-9-2013. This is not all. Muhammad Hashim was admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court by a separate order of even date. It cannot be lost sight of that nowhere has it been alleged in the entire FIR that the petitioner is a party to the alleged forgery and fabrication of the documents in question. Prima facie, he purchased the plot in question on the strength of a registered power of attorney. In point of fact, applications for remand of Muhammad Hashim, co-accused were moved by Deputy Director Investigation, Anti-Corruption Establishment on 6-6-2013, 10-6-2013 and 12-6-2013 in which it was stated by him that Muhammad Hashim co-accused had sold the plot in question to the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2500,000, and this money is to be recovered from the aforementioned Muhammad Hashim. This being so, learned counsel for the petitioner was not wide of the mark in making the submission that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to be a victim of circumstances. It is also remarkable that the petitioner has already instituted a suit for declaration respecting the suit plot which is pending adjudication before a learned Civil Judge, Multan. The falsity or forgery of fabrication of general power of attorney is yet to be determined by the Civil Court after recording the evidence. Even otherwise, the offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable whereas section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 does not appear to be attracted to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as he is not a Government Servant. Last but not least, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is involved in any other case. His implication in the instant case appears to be stemming from mala fides. Evidently, the complainant wants to put pressure upon him so as to make the petitioner part with the suit property.

7. For all the reasons set out hereinabove, the ad interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 21-11-2013 is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. It is made clear that above is the tentative assessment of the material placed before the Court. Any observation made in the order shall not have any bearing on the outcome of the trial, if any. It shall be decided on its own merits, after recording evidence for the parties. HBT/M-210/L Bail confirmed.