2002 PLP 1296 (MLD)

Syed Ghulam Nabi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th September, 2001. The petitioners seek pre‑arrest bail in F.I.R. No.402, dated 26‑7‑2001 under sections 471/420/468, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar; Depalpur, District Okara.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mst Mumtaz Begum is owner of land, subject‑matter of the instant F.I.R. She never sold the said land in favour of Khushi Muhammad and others vide alleged agreement to sell dated 15‑1‑2001. She came to know about the agreement dated 15‑1‑2001 when Khushi Muhammad filed a suit for specific performance against her on 7‑4‑2001. Hence she lodged the F.I.R. referred above.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had verified vendees of the said agreement.

4. The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail which relief has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur. Hence the instant petition.

5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

6. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that till today the alleged agreement dated 15‑1‑2001 has not been recovered, that the petitioners have been simply assigned the role of verifying the vendees of the said agreement, that as per investigation so far conducted the petitioners have been found innocent by the D.S.P. Depalpur vide case Diary No.15, dated 11‑9‑2001, He thus submits that case of the petitioners stands covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and they are entitled to the concession of bail.

7. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. However, learned counsel for the State submits that as per investigation referred above the petitioners have bee found innocent by the D. S. P., Depalpur.

8. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had verified the vendees of agreement to sell dated 15‑1‑2001. Admittedly the original agreement has not so far been procured by the Investigating. Agency as the same has not been produced by the complainant and has, also not been even produced by accused of the instant F.I.R. in the Civil Court where they have sought specific performance of the said agreement. Unless and until the agreement dated 15‑1‑2001 is secured and the alleged signatures of the petitioners are got compared with the signatures appearing on the said agreement, they cannot be held responsible for the offence charged against them. This being the factual position, the petition is accepted and the interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 16‑8‑2001 is confirmed. However, this order shall not debar the complainant cancellation if after securing the document and getting the signatures of the petitioners compared with their signatures appearing on the said document, the report goes against them (petitioners).

9. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑1134/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Interim pre‑arrest bail confirmed.