RIASAT ALI Versus State

ORDER

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J. --- The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.560 of 2008 dated 9-6-2008, registered under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C. at Police Station Nishtar Colony, District Lahore.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he had fleeced Rs.10,00,000 from the complainant on the pretext of buying him cheaper property at Lahore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an un-explained delay of one year in lodging of F.I.R, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. There is no description of property about which the petitioner had promised the complainant to buy at Lahore, therefore, there was no reason on the part of the complainant to straightaway hand him over Rs.10,00,000. He further submits that the case of the petitioner under which he is liable to be tried does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last five months and no recovery has so far been effected from him. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the cases reported as Ramzan v. The State 2007 YLR 1380 and Masood Baghpati and another v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1648.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation and there is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicating the petitioner in this case.

5. Learned D.P.-G also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R with specific role. However, he submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He has referred to the case of Afzal and Malik Iqbal, who are the ones who had fleeced Rs.10,00,000 from the complainant and against whom the allegations have been levelled and not the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.-G and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R but I am afraid there was no reason for the complainant to lodge F.I.R after the lapse of one year. Even if at all fraud of Rs.10,00,000 has been committed with him, he could have instantly lodged the F.I.R. This inordinate delay of lodging of F.I.R has not been explained, therefore, case regarding implication of the petitioner with the commission of offence becomes doubtful. Moreover, there is no description of property which the present petitioner had promised the complainant to buy and the complainant had blindfoldedly handed over Rs.10,00,000 to the petitioner without going into the details regarding description of the property as well as its location. This would also cast doubt in one's mind regarding veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, therefore, handing over Rs.10,00,000 to the petitioner seems improbable and the case of the petitioner does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

H.B.T./R-9/L Bail allowed.