2003 PLP 1378 (MLD)

Mian M. Nawaz Nazar Dhuddi for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 31st July, 2001. Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.183 registered on 17-6-2001 at Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad on the statement of Muhammad Aslam under sections 406, 420, 119, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts narrated by the complainant are that the tractor about 14 months ago was purchased from Idrees Shah for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000, at the time of occurrence Rs.1,00,000 was paid in the presence of Yasin Shah and father of the complainant. Photo copies of the documents were produced by Idrees Shah accused and it was agreed that the remaining amount will be paid after one year and the original documents will be provided by Idrees Shah to the complainant. He has already paid Rs.79,600 in the presence of the witnesses to Idrees Shah, and Rs.5,400 is outstanding against the complainant but Idrees Shah is not handing over the original Registration Book and Transfer Letter. He has insisted for handing over the Transfer Letter but Idrees Shah is putting of the matter by one way or the other. It has been mentioned that Sub-Inspector Sikandar Baloch is friend of Idrees Shah and they had taken tractor into possession and has been sealed in the Police Station.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offences are not covered the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been mentioned as accused with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contents that the statement made by the witness under section 161, C. P. C. does not ascribe any role to the petitioner in the occurrence.

4. Learned State counsel opposed this application on the ground that the accused is nominated in the F.I.R. and has not joined the investigation.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the record. Only name of the petitioner as accused person has been mentioned and no role has been ascribed to him. I have noticed that the statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. does not ascribe any role to the petitioner for the commission of the crime. Merely mentioning the name of the petitioner in the case will not be sufficient to make out the case against the accused person: The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct that the complainant has widen his net to involve all the relatives of Idrees Shah accused against him. Prima facie case of the petitioner seems to be of civil nature which cannot be converted into criminal offence. I find no reason to dismiss the bail petition of the petitioner as otherwise it is a case of no evidence to the extent of involvement of the petitioner. The bail of the petitioner already granted to him is confirmed in the circumstances of the case. H.B.T./M-1903/L Interim bail confirmed.