THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD JAWWAD GHANI

ORDER

1. Originally the learned counsel for respondent in the main suo motu petition is Mr. Muhammad Inayat Ullah Cheema, Advocate while Ch. Abdul Sattar, Advocate has filed this C.M. petition. He submits that in fact mother of learned counsel for respondent has died, so he could not appear, that simultaneous applications, one before this Court and the other before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which is pending and either the complainant's counsel should withdraw his application from the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge or should argue his case here or otherwise.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has file this C.M. petition. This C.M. petition is dismissed and I order the learned original counsel to argue this case on behalf of the respondent. As far as, application for cancellation of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is concerned, as the petition for cancellation of bail is not being decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that learned counsel for respondent is not appearing before the Court that his mother had died and he was busy in "Rasm-i-Daswan" so I while using my suo mote powers now will proceed with this case.

3. MAIN CASE.

4. Inayat Ullah Cheema for Respondent.

5. Malik Shaukat Ali Awan for the Complainant.

6. Naeem Ullah Lodhi for the State.

7. Muhammad Sarwar S.-I. with record.

8. In the instant case, Muhammad Saeed Akhtar alongwith one Sultan Ahmad Bhinder filed application for bail before arrest bearing Crl. Misc. No.6706/B of 2003, which came up for hearing before this Court of 12-11-2003 and in which it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that main beneficiary had been allowed bail by learned Addl. Sessions Judge while the petitioners were only alleged as attesting witnesses, at that time while granting interim ban before arrest to those petitioners I issued suo motu notice to the present respondent with the further direction to the notice to prepare a separate file and matter was adjourned for 24-11-2003. On the said date, according to the office report, petitioners in the said petition did not file bail bonds and learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they have been arrested so he wanted to withdraw that application and the same was dismissed but present respondent was not present although I had ordered him to appear before this Court, separate tile was prepared, matter came up for hearing on 24-11-2003 in Crl. Misc. No.7125/CB of 2003, Sarwar S.-I. was present, he was directed to get the service effected on the - present respondent and to produce him before this Court on 5-12-2003 but on 5-12-2003 learned counsel for respondent Mr. Muhammad Inayat Ullah Cheema, Advocate submitted before this Court that an application for cancellation of bail has' also been moved by the complainant before the learner Addl. Sessions Judge and is fixed for 6-12-2003,'so I directed the respondent to produce his counsel before learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge would decide the matter without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court with the further direction to Muhammad Sarwar, S.-I. to produce complainant of the F.I.R. before this Court on 11-12-2003 but on 11-12-2003 it was submitted before me that learned counsel for respondent did not appear before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 6-12-2003, so this application was adjourned for today i.e. 22-12-2003. Today, it has been stated before me that mother of learned counsel for respondent has died so he did not appear before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the last date of hearing. While passing a separate order and giving reasons I have decided to hear this matter because it is pending for the last more that, one month. Moreover, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted an application before me in which the same learned counsel has appeared before another learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 20-11-2003 on the application filed by the present respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has not misused the concession of bail that sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable and non-cognizable while section 420, P.P.C. is bailable. Further submits that report of Handwriting Expert on the file is a manoeuvred one and the respondent has submitted an application for re examination of the sale agreement with the thumb/signatures of the deceased father of the complainant alongwith his National Identity Card or his other documents, that there is stay order granted by the Civil Court in favour of the present respondent, that suit for specific performance was filed and thereafter, the instant F I.R. was registered against the present respondent and other, that there is a clear violation of section 195, Cr.P.C. that police cannot investigate this case, that no is made out and the bail granting order be maintained.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that alongwith sections 468, 471, 420, P.P.C there is section 419, P.P,C. which is non-cognizable and non-bailable, that report of Handwriting Expert is in favour of the prosecution because when the respondent was allowed bail before-arrest he was directed to produce the original sale agreement, which was produced, thereafter, the said sale agreement, original registry in the name of father of the complainant and register of stamp vendor were sent to Handwriting Expert and it was found that disputed sale agreement was not genuine one, that before investigating the case the police had taken the permission from learned Illaqa Magistrate and that stay granted to the respondent was cancelled by the Civil Court but at, this stage, learned counsel for the respondent had produced a copy of notice issued by Mr. Muhammad Feroze Khan, learned Addl. Sessions Judge stating therein that the stay which was cancelled had been restored in favour of the present respondent: Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that respondent had also misused the concession of bail and two F.I.Rs Nos.284 and 285 of 2003 have been registered against him in P.S. Civil Line, Gujranwala and he has been declared P.O. in those cases. He further submits that possession of the land in dispute is with the complainant party, that Khasra Girdawaries are also in the name of complainant party and that when this forged sale-agreement was prepared the father of the complainant had already died.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. One should keep in mind, considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. A man can tell a lie but the documents not. Original sale agreement, stamp vendor register and the National Identity Card of the deceased were sent to Handwriting Expert and according to the report of Handwriting Expert there was no thumb-impressions of the deceased father of the complainant on the said sale agreement against whom it has been alleged that he had made a sale agreement with the present-respondent. Learned counsel for the complainant while arguing the case has also produced before me an agreement between Ashiq Pervez and Muhammad Farooq who was tenant of the deceased in which the present respondent is a marginal witness. The said land which is in fact 67 acres that was given on lease to Ashiq Pervez and this agreement took place on 1-6-2000 while the disputed sale agreement is dated 6-6-2000, I am unable to understand that how within five, days the deceased agreed to sell this land to the present respondent. Unfortunately, these types of incidents are on it, peak and those should be curbed with iron hand.

12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to cancel the bail of the present respondent, so this suo motu petition is accepted and the bail granting order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in favour of the present respondent is hereby recalled.

13. N.H.Q./S-1/L Bail cancelled.