FAZAL AHMED and another vs ARIF ANWAR SAEED and another

' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The petitioners, who are inter se, father and son, and accused in criminal complaint filed by respondent No,1 under sections 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (in short Act 2005), have preferred this criminal petition for leave to appeal to impugn the legality of the order dated 27-7-2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur in Criminal Revision No, S-45 of 2009, whereby the said criminal revision application was dismissed, and consequently, the order regarding issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners dated 7-5-2009 passed by the trial Court of IInd Addition Sessions Judge Sukkur in complaint No, 60 of 2009, was accepted.

2. Mr. M. Akram Siddiqui, learned ASC, making reference to the order of the trial Court dated 7-5- 2009, submits that without taking into consideration the claim of the petitioners as regards their lawful possession over the disputed property, on the basis of police report, non-bailable warrants of both the petitioners have been issued in the said case, as a result of which their liberty is at stake. He further submits that even if a prima facie case was made out on the basis of criminal complaint under section 3 of the Act, 2005, filed by respondent No, 1, the action of issuance of non- bailable warrants, in the first instance, is extremely harsh and it has caused serious prejudice to the interest of the two petitioners, out of whom the petitioner No,2 is aged over eighty years. He adds that the petitioners are ready to face the proceedings before the trial Court in connection with the criminal complaint under the Act 2005, filed by respondent No, 1, but they have been seriously handicapped in doing so due to the fear of their arrest as the trial Court has issued, non-bailable warrants against them. He therefore, submits that in case non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners are converted into bailable warrants, the petitioners will be satisfied, as they are willing to surrender before the trial Court to seek further remedy according to law. In the same context he also points out that vide order dated 6-10-2009, passed in Criminal Bail Application No, S-889 of 2009, the petitioner No, 1 has already surrendered himself before the trial Court and moved bail application, but the same has not yet been decided by the trial Court.

3. Mr. Arif Anwar Saeed, respondent No,1 in this case is present in Court. He has not disputed the above noted facts of the case.

4. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are inclined to convert this criminal petition into criminal appeal and dispose it of in the terms that the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court dated 7-5-2009 is modified in the terms that non-bailable warrants issued by the trial Court against the petitioners are converted into bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), so as to enable the petitioners to surrender themselves before the trial Court, seek bail through proper applications, and join further proceedings in the case. .