MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and others Versus AMANAT ALI

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---------- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 9-3-2004, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 164-CB of 2003, whereby the concession of pre-arrest bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, vide order, dated 19-7-2003 was set aside.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-Amanat Ali is a Zamindar and owner of 20 Kanals of land. Petitioner-Muhammad Irshad used to visit him, who is residing in Chak No.111/12-L, and to connivance with Mumtaz Ahmad Stamp Vendor of Chichawatni he prepared a forged agreement to sale which was signed by Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sharif as witnesses. The aforesaid agreement was prepared for sale of the above mentioned land for a consideration of Rs.500,000, out of which Rs.50,000 were shown to be already given as loan and Rs.400,000 were paid as earnest money. The complainant further stated that as he has no son, the forged documents were prepared to grab his property. Therefore, a case was registered under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. against the accused-petitioners.

3. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chichawatni vide order, dated 19-7-2003. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned order herein. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable. He further submitted that prima facie no case was made out against the petitioners.

5. We considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on the file. The petitioners were declined pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court on 9-3-2004, but they never surrendered before the concerned police. The record further shows that after formal investigation police submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court where the trial is yet to commence. Prima facie the allegations against the petitioners are of serious nature. In our considered view, they are not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. The criteria for grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused person is quite different to that after arrest. The learned High Court has exercised .its discretionary jurisdiction after scanning the record. The impugned order is neither perverse, nor capricious or arbitrary, which does not call for interference by this Court. We are of the considered view that, prima facie the petitioners are guilty of the offence as charge-sheet has been filed against them.

6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.

7. The petitioners are present in the Court. They are taken into custody with the direction that their custody be handed over to the S. H. O. Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal under F.I.R. No.167 of 2003.

8. The above are the reasons for our short order of today.

M.H./M-85/S Petition dismissed.