2006 PLP 1927 (YLR)

ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.480, dated 23-10-2005, registered under sections 468/471/420/406, P.P.C. at Police Station Barki, Cantt., Lahore.

2. The petitioner is before this Court on ad interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 15-12-2005.

3. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that in a land transaction which had already been settled between the vendors of that property and a Housing Scheme called as Paragon, he surreptitiously impersonated the said Paragon and brought about a transaction between himself and those vendors. But it is also said that he did pass on money to them.

4. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, a cheating was played with M/s. Paragon and they were deprived of their land. They alleged that they were impersonated, otherwise the vendors of the property would not have made a second transaction and sale to the petitioner which, it is said, was also done suddenly.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed on considerable consideration to the vendors and this very act of his removed all doubts which have been expressed by Paragon, the complainant side. It is said that M/s Paragon has no case at all and if they have a case, they have a case against the vendors who also accused.

6. The matter was investigated by the A.S.P. Cantt., and a copy of his report dated 16-1-2006 is placed on the file, wherein he has come to the conclusion that no case was made out against the petitioner.

7. When this matter came up before this Court, the Investigating Officer was directed to ascertain when and under what circumstances this sale-deed was registered and also to find out whether there was a truth in the allegations of Paragon with respect to impersonation. An adjournment was given for this purpose. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Local Commissioner, who had recorded the statements of the vendors upon the sale transaction and according to the Local Commissioner no impersonation took place and the sale transaction was purely a transaction between the petitioner and those vendors who have voluntarily chosen to retract their commitment to Paragon and negotiated and settled the transaction with the present petitioner.

8. It is said by the learned counsel for Paragon that the statement of the Local Commissioner has no worth because he was a man chosen by the petitioner for purposes of transaction.

9. Tariq, Inspector/Investigating Officer was further asked to produce vendors and an adjournment was given by this Court to this effect. But the vendors were not produced and the excuse taken before this Court is of a bereavement in their family.

10. Now before this Court there are two basic pieces of evidence which prima facie look favourable as far as the petitioner is concerned. These are reports of the A.S.P. which has been further endorsed by the A.S.P. (Investigation) and the statement of Local Commissioner who went to execute the document. The question of impersonation is still to be established and the best persons for this purpose are the vendors, who have also to be investigated by the I.O./A.S.P. (Investigation) but presently they are not available. This bail application has been lingering on. So, on the basis of two pieces of evidence made available on the file, this Court feels appropriate to pass the following order. The bail of the petitioner is confirmed but this is subject to condition that in case A.S.P. (Investigation) calls the vendors, interrogates them and comes to the contrary view then what is already said in the two reports will be liable to cancellation and the other side can always make an application for cancellation of the bail. Therefore, this confirmation of the bail application is absolutely without prejudice to the right of cancellation as has been stated above.

11. With these observations, the matter stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-250/L Bail confirmed.