MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus State

ORDER

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.6446-B of 2006 filed on behalf of Muhammad Rafique and Criminal Miscellaneous No.6444-B of 2006 filed on behalf of Muhammad Amjad accused in case F.I.R. No.718, dated 8-6-2006 for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Shandara, Lahore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant on the basis of fake agreement to sell and had deprived the complainant of Rs.2,40,000 received as earnest money regarding sale of a plot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of 32 days in lodging of the F.I.R. which had not been explained; that the offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. were non-cognizable offences hence the police could not investigate the matter in respect thereof without permission from the 'concerned Court; that section 420, P.P.C. was not attracted to the case of the petitioners however the same was bailable that no specific role had been attributed to the petitioners who neither executed the said agreement to sell nor signed the same that the petitioners had joined the investigation and nothing had to be recovered from them and lastly contended that there was no evidence on the record connecting the petitioners with any cheating or forgery as alleged by the prosecution hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and specific role of depriving the complainant of Rs.2,40,000 through fraud had been ascribed to them that no mala fide had been alleged against the complainant for their false involvement in the case; that Muhammad Rafique after dismissal of his bail application by the learned lower Court did not surrender before the police and escaped from the Court; that Muhammad Amjad petitioner after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail did not turn up when the case was fixed for confirmation and further both the petitioners did not join the investigation after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned lower Court hence the petitioners were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The complainant is a lady who has been deprived of Rs.2,40,000 by the petitioners on the pretext of providing a plot to her and in furtherance of the said design prepared a fictitious and forged agreement to sell. The record shows that the amount in question was received by the petitioners from the complainant. Muhammad Rafique petitioner after dismissal of his application did not surrender to the police but escaped from the Court. Muhammad Amjad petitioner after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail did not appear before the learned Court when the case was fixed for confirmation. Further the petitioners after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail did not join the investigation. The amount in question has yet to be recovered from the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for false involvement of the petitioners in the case. Prima facie there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them. Further the petitioners have misused the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail granted by the learned lower Court. Hence, they are not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

7. Resultantly, the petitions being without merit are dismissed.

H.B.T./M-724/L Bail refused.