MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus STATE

ORDER

This is a petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C by Muhammad Sarwar, petitioner for bail in respect of a case instituted against him and one other under section 406/420/468, P.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala, on 7‑12‑1986.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15‑6‑1986, Muhammad Sarwar, petitioner alongwith his brother Muhammad Asghar executed an agreement for sale in favour of Muhammad Arif, Advocate, complainant to sell fifteen Kanals eight Marlas of agricultural land in Chak Dubai Mehtab Singhwala for Rupees one lac sixty thousand (Rs.1,60,000), against payment of earnest money of Rupees eighty thousand (Rs.80,000) stated to have been received against the sale price. After the said agreement, the complainant came to know that the petitioner and his brother were not competent to sell the land, as they had already sold away the same earlier to one Muhammad Akbar. The complainant approached the petitioner and his brother for the return of the earnest money but they refused to do so The motive for the fraud was that the father of the complainant had made an application against the petitioner under section 190, Cr.P.C. before the District and Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, which was pending.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have also perused the police record. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Arif, Advocate, complainant, admitted that he had not paid Rupees eighty thousand (Rs.80,000) of earnest money, as stated in the alleged agreement for sale, dated 15‑6‑1986. The Police Officer, who is present and who has investigated the case, submits that Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam, the alleged witnesses to the agreement for sale, dated 15‑6‑1986 and the sale- deed, dated 3‑7‑1986, did not appear before him to support the prosecution case. He further submits that Mr. Salim Mahmood Chahail, Advocate, who had scribed the agreement for sale, dated 15‑6‑1985, also had not appeared before him to support the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the question whether the petitioner and his co‑accused are guilty of the offences imputed to them, calls for further inquiry.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and Muhammad Sarwar, petitioner, is released on bail, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of rupees twenty thousand (Rs.20,000) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.

S.A./M‑100/L Bail granted.