2007 PLP 1177 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J:

Abid Hussain son of Abdul Ghani, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.593, dated 23-7-2006, registered with Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore for offences under sections 380, 395, 440, 448, 511, 148 and 149, P.P.C. at the instance of Aziz Fani son of Barkat Ali.

2. The facts in detail have already been given in my order, dated 30-10-2006, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7956/B. of 2066, while allowing bail to co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Tashfeen, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Saleem, Manzoor Hussain alias Manzoor -ul-Hassan, Shaukat Ali and Asif Ali, so the same need not be reiterated here once again.

3. The petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who proceeded to dismiss his application vide order, dated 23-9-2006. Hence, the instant petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.-I.

5. The petitioner has been maintaining all along that his father Abdul Ghani is the lawful owner of the property in dispute, vide registered sale-deed dated 25-1-1977. On 30-10-2006, the Investigating Officer of the case had stated that he had yet not verified the said claim made by the petitioner. Resultantly, I had asked Sub-Registrar, Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore Cantt., to produce the record relating to Document No.1399, Book No.1, Volume No.88, purportedly registered with Sub-Registrar on 25-1-1977. The said original record was produced by the Sub-Registrar, which prima facie proves the contention of the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for the complainant attempted to point out certain defects in the sale-deed and submitted that it was a forged document, however, the fact remains that the document in question exists on the record of the Sub-Registrar. It is also admitted position that the said sale-deed has yet not been challenged by any one so far. As far as the complainant is concerned, he claims the ownership of the property in question on the basis of an allegedly forged gift deed, which is written on a plain paper in the year 1981 and is an unregistered document. If both the documents i.e. purported sale-deed in favour of the father of the petitioner and the alleged gift deed purported to have been executed in favour of the complainant are juxtaposed', the sale-deed would prima facie have sanctity in view of the fact that it was registered document. It appears that there is a dispute about the property between the petitioner and the complainant and both of them are resorting to criminal action in order to settle their civil dispute. Co-accused of the petitioner, who were six in number, have already been allowed post-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 30-10-2006, as aforementioned. As already stated elsewhere, the possibility that F.I.R. had been registered in order to resolve the civil dispute cannot outrightly be rejected. The petitioner also alleged mala fides against the police, i.e. that the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the S.H.O. were unfavourably disposed towards the petitioner and were instrumental in getting the case registered against him with ulterior motives.

6. In this backdrop, I hereby accept this petition and confirm the interim anticipatory bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 26-9-2006, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-239/L Bail confirmed.