2008 PLP 15 (MLD)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6875-CB and 7439-CB of 2007 filed by Mst. Rehana Kausar-petitioner seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents therein by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, vide impugned orders.

2. In support of both these petitions learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not a case of bail before arrest, which was granted to the respondents by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lahore; that both the parties have blood relations, as the petitioner is sister of the respondents; that respondents took Meraj Din-deceased, father of both the parties, to hospital after heart attack and got his thumb impressions and signatures on the gift deed in order to deprive the petitioner and other family members; that considerations for grant of post-arrest bail and pre-arrest bail are totally different. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the unreported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan i.e. CPLA No.474-L of 2006 (Muhammad Yousaf v. Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and others) and C.P. No.84-L of 2006 (Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others).

3. Conversely learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that order passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption was in accordance with law; that earlier on the same facts and circumstances a case was also registered on the statement of Muhammad Aslam, who is real brother of the present petitioner; that in that case learned Magistrate had granted pre-arrest bail to the present respondents (in both the petitions) and thereafter said Muhammad Aslam approached this Court for cancellation of bail through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3118-CB-2006, but his petition was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 12-10-2006; that gift deed had already been taken into possession and nothing is to be recovered from the respondents; that Challan has been submitted in the Court; and that no useful purpose would be served if pre-arrest bail already granted to the respondents is cancelled. Thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the other hand, learned DPG submits that earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3118-CB-2006, whereby Muhammad Aslam had sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondents, still holds field and has attained finality. On query of this Court he admits that for one allegation two F.I.Rs. cannot be registered. However, Tariq Maqsood, Circle Officer, present in Court, admits that in the earlier F.I.R., which was registered at the instance of Muhammad Aslam, no government official was involved and in the instant case government official is involved, so it was registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. First of all I may state here that for the same allegations two F.I.Rs. by two different persons were got registered. In the earlier F.I.R. lodged by Muhammad Aslam, bail was granted to the respondents and the complainant challenged the same before this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3118-CB-2006, which was decided by me vide order, dated 12-10-2006 by giving detailed reasons in para.5 of the said order. Now for the same allegation present F.I.R. was lodged against the respondents, who are real brothers of the complainant-petitioner. There is no evidence that Meraj Din, who was father of both the parties and suffered heart attack, was taken to hospital by the respondents and the respondents got his thumb impressions and signatures on the gift deed. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The report of handwriting expert is that thumb impressions on the gift deed are of the deceased while the signatures did not tally with the signatures of bank account, identity card and passport of the deceased. Recovery has also been effected. Challan has been submitted. There is no allegation that after their grant of bail the respondents have misused the same. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner not applicable in this case.

6. The crux of the whole discussion is that I find no merit in both these petitions, hence the same are dismissed. N.H.Q./R-42/L Petitions dismissed.