K A K A Versus BASHIR AHMAD

ORDER

1. The respondents are alleged to have fabricated the sale-deed by producing fictitious person, and thus deprived one Kaka of his property. Complainant brought this matter to the notice of the authorities, and the Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh held an enquiry and during the judicial enquiry, it transpired, that Kaka was not a party to the alleged transaction of sale of his land in favour of the respondent. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a criminal case was registered against the respondent under the provisions of section 420/468/472 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Respondents were allowed pre-arrest bail, which was also confirmed. The order granting bail to the respondents has been assailed through this 'petition.

2. It is contended that the grant of pre-arrest bail was in violation of the principles laid down in judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1984 SC 192 Zia-ul-Hasan v. The State.

3. In course of the hearing of this case, this Court summoned Kaka in this Court. Kaka is present in this Court, and states that he has been wrongfully deprived of his property. It is further submitted that both the parties are litigating with each other in the Civil Court. The Investigating Officer states that challan in this case has been submitted, and the copies of the statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. have also been distributed, and the charge has also been framed. It is further submitted that incomplete challan was submitted, and the respondents are needed by the Investigating Officer for tracing out the sale-deed, promissory notes and other documents. It is also submitted that in course of hearing of the bail application, the respondents had promised to produce the said documents, but after the confirmation of their bail, they have withheld the production of the aforesaid document. It is further submitted that the aforesaid documents were lost while travelling in a bus, an, a report has also been lodged with the Police Station Narowal about the said loss. It is also stated that the thumb-impressions of Kaka, petitioner were obtained and were got compared with the thumb-impression impression on the photostat of the sale-deed and it is found by the Finger Prints Expert that the photostat a' the sale-deed does not near thumb-impression of Kaka.

4. It is also stated that the respondents hampered the investigation, and it is yet to be ascertained as to who impersonated Kaka petitioner.

5. After anxious considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents was nor justified and, thereby, progress in the investigation has been hampered and facts have not been properly collected.

6. Accordingly, I allow this petition, set aside the order impugned, whereby, the respondents were allowed bail. Respondents shall be taken into custody forthwith.

7. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.

8. S.A./K-81/L Anticipatory bail cancelled.