Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNAWAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifMalik Muhammad Waseem
P L D 2010 Lahore 39
P L D 2010 Lahore 39
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C. J.
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Writ Petition No.2464 of Criminal Miscellaneous No.4485-B, 3645-B of 2009, decided on 14th May, 2009.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss.420, 468 & 471---Cheating of forgery---Bail, grant of---Legible copy of F.I.R. not finding mention actual version of complainant as contained in certified copy of F.I.R. filed along with bail application----Validity---High Court declined to take action against counsel for accused for being a young man and newly entered in profession, but warned him to be careful in future while filing legible copy of F.I.R., he should give complete words of F.I.R.-Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471-Cheating of forgery---Bail, grant of---Filing of copy of case diary showing accused to have been declared innocent by Investigating Officer---Plea of accused that complainant party with connivance of police had removed case diary from police record---Validity---High Court while dismissing bail application directed Superintendent of Police, Investigation to look into matter that how Investigating Officer declared accused to be innocent and how photo copy of case diary reached in hands of accused.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss.497 & 498---Bail---Consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail and after arrest bail are totally different.
Malik Muhammad Waseem with the Petitioner.
Rana Bukhtiar, Ali D.P.G. along with Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. Aleem Rasool Morya for the Complainant.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.4485-B-2009 titled as Munawar Hussain v. The State, Criminal Miscellaneous No.3645-B of 2009 titled as Muhammad Akram and others v. The State and Writ Petition No.2464 of 2009 titled as Munawar Hussain v. The State for quashment of F.I.R.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Munawar Hussain petitioner is Patwari while Muhammad Akram and Khushi, Muhammad are the persons amongst them Muhammad Akram was gifted this land by Allah Ditta s/o Umar Din on 20-5-1982. He submits that Allah Ditta had appeared before Mun.awar Hussain Patwari to get the mutation attested in this case and submits that no offence has been committed by the present petitioners and they are innocent; that as far as complainant is concerned, he has nothing to do with this land and only he has relationship with the deceased Allah Ditta. He submits that death certificate of Allah Ditta deceased dated 20-5-1982, the same was entered in the register of Chowkidar Of concerned union council on 23-6-1982; that complainant in connivance with Chowkidar had altered the date of death of the deceased; that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners; that complainant had filed suit for permanent injunction which is pending in the Civil Court; that one Hussain Ali Opal Investigating Officer had declared the petitioners to be innocent but the complainant party with connivance of local police removed the case diary from police record and he produced photo copy of the same before this Court; that now investigation is with some other police officer and that case of petitioners is of further inquiry.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is real nephew of Allah Ditta deceased; that it is matter of great concern that learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record certified copy of the F.I.R. along with legible copy of F.I.R. for this Court but in the said legible copy of F.I.R, he has not mentioned most important version of the complainant that they are real legal heirs of Allah Ditta deceased. He submits that Allah Ditta died on 20-5-1982 and the mutation was attested on 26-12-1997; that this is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I am sorry to note with great concern that actual version of the complainant mentioned in the F.I.R. shows that it was written that complainant along with others are real legal heirs of Allah Ditta deceased and are in possession of said land.
In the instance case it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Allah Ditta deceased gifted this land to Muhammad Akram petitioner but no identity card of Allah Ditta deceased has been mentioned therein to identify whether Allah Ditta deceased had appeared before Munawar Hussain Patwari at the time of attestation of mutation. It may also be noted here that land has been further gifted by Shabbir Ahmad to Amjad son of Akram petitioner, then Amjad gifted this land to Akhtar, Ajmal and Afzal sons of Ibrahim who are real brothers of Akram petitioner against whom allegation has been levelled in this F.I.R. I have gone through the case diary about which it was submitted that the same has been removed from the police file in which the petitioners were declared to be innocent. I am unable to understand that how this photo copy of case diary was given to the petitioners.
5. After having heard counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that this is not a case for bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail and after arrest bail are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out. Both the petitions for bail before arrest are dismissed.
6. For the above said reasons Writ Petition No.2464-2009 titled as Munawar Hussain v. The State is also dismissed. However, I direct S.P Investigation Sheikhupura to look into the matter that how Hussain Ali Opal Inspector declared the petitioners to be innocent and how photo copy of case diary reached in the hands of petitioner. I also warn learned counsel for the petitioner to be careful in future while filing legible copy of F.I.R. he should give complete words of F.I.R. I want to take action against him but he is young man and seems to be newly entered in the profession therefore, he should be careful in future. DPG is directed to send a copy of this order to S.P. Investigation Sheikhupura within three days.
S.A.K/M-458/L Bail refused.