2016 P Cr (PLP)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

This petition has been filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Zahoor Ahmed, Nasir Ali and Shaukat Ali, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 18.06.2014 passed by an Additional SesSions Judge, Chiniot in case FIR No.237/14 dated 16.05.2014 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Chiniot.

2. The FIR was lodged by Zamir Husnain, the petitioner herein, alleging that respondent No.2, Zahoor Ahmed forged and fabricated an agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 32 Kanals belonging to one Nazeer Ahmed son of Allah Yar. As for respondents Nos.3 and 4, they are alleged to be partners in crime. They allegedly are marginal witnesses to the purported agreement to sell.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Zahoor Ahmed had entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.01.2013 with Nazeer Ahmed, the aforementioned in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas situated at Chak No.13/GB, Tehsil and District Chiniot. It was mutated in his name. However, he filed a suit for specific performance against Nazeer Ahmed in respect of land measuring 37 Kanals 13 Marlas on the basis of the, very same agreement to sell dated 02.01.2013. He argues that the agreement regarding the sale of land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas was interpolated and the figure entered as 4 Kanals 9 Marlas was changed into 37 Kanals 13 Marlas. He adds that Nazeer Ahmed allegedly made an agreement with the petitioner for his remaining land measuring 32 Kanals. According to him, the forgery was committed by Zahoor, Ahmed with a view to depriving the petitioner of his valuable rights arising from his purported agreement to sell dated 27.01.2014. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has also instituted a suit for specific performance against Nazeer Ahmed on the basis of the aforesaid alleged agreement to sell.

4. Learned counsel bitterly criticizes the order dated 18.06.2014 by which the accused were granted pre-arrest bail. He stresses that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot neither adverted to the facts nor appreciated the contentions of the petitioner. He goes on to argue that the scope of pre-arrest bail is different from that of after-arrest bail.

5. I have perused order dated 18.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. He passed a balanced and well-reasoned order. It was pointed out by him that the alleged forged and fabricated agreement to sell did not bear the signatures and thumb impressions of either the executant or the marginal witnesses. Therefore, such a document was of no consequence. He also took note of the fact that Nazeer Ahmed had filed an affidavit, exonerating the accused from any culpability. Since the focus of the FIR as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant is on a civil suit instituted by Zahoor Ahmed, the petitioner has also annexed a copy of the plaint in that suit together with the order sheet to this petition. At the same time, copy of the purported forged and fabricated agreement to sell, on the basis of which, the civil suit was filed has been attached with this petition. A bare look at the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by Mr. Raja Amir Aziz, learned Civil Judge, Chiniot shows that the suit was dismissed as having been withdrawn. Therefore, the agreement in question accompanying the plaint was never tendered in evidence. Furthermore, it dos not carry the signatures of either the Executant or the marginal witnesses thereto. Therefore, it was of little value, if not worthless altogether. It was admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Nazeer Ahmed, the owner of the land in question has denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell dated 27.01.2014 allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this appears to be the case of the pot calling the kettle black. The petitioner himself has still a long way to go to prove the execution of the alleged agreement to sell in his favour. When Nazeer Ahmed is not prepared and willing to proceed against respondents Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner need not take up cudgels on his behalf.

6. Even if the suit instituted by the petitioner on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 27.01.2014 is decreed, it would per se not confer any title upon him unless and until a formal sale deed is executed in his favour.

7. In conclusion, it may be observed that the offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable, while the offence under section 471, P.P.C. is non-cognizable. Apparently, the police never sought permission from the Area Magistrate to carry out investigation.

8. Given the above facts, the false implication of respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the case got registered by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the principles for the grant of bail are different from those of cancellation, and unless the order by which the accused are admitted to bail is found to be perverse or shocking or patently illegal, this Court would be slow to interfere with the discretion exercised by a competent Court of law in granting bail.

9. For what has been stated above, this petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. MH/Z-33/L Petition dismissed.