Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 330 of 1981, decided on 18th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑6‑1981 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1555‑B of 1981).
‑‑ Ss. 498 & 498‑A‑Pre‑arrest bail‑Cancellation of bail‑Civil suit filed by petitioner on ground of defendants mentioned therein having by means of an agreement undertaken to sell property in dispute to him but such defendants sold out property to another and such sale being not binding on him he was entitled to specific performance of agreement‑Vendors and vendees sub sequently getting a F. I. R. registered against petitioner complaining of agreement having been forged‑Petitioner allowed pre‑arrest bail but bail subsequently not confirmed on ground of petitioner having failed to produce copy of impugned judgment of Sessions Court Question of genuineness or otherwise having been .sub judice before civil Court, launching of criminal case nothing but abuse of process of Court, such course having been adopted to pressurize petitioner and as such constituted a good ground for pre‑arrest bail‑Petitioner joining investigation and original agreement existing on record and contention of opposite‑party belied in such regard‑No good ground, held, existed for cancellation of bail and petitioner entitled to bail --Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 465, 467, 468, 471 & 109.
Ch. Abdul Hafiz, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Shujauddin Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate on‑Record for the State.
Mehdi Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the. Complainant.
Date of hearing : 18th August, 1981.
‑The petitioner has filed a civil suit on the ground that the defendants mentioned therein had by means of an agreement dated 31‑12‑1979, undertaken to sell the property in dispute to him. However, the aforesaid vendors on 23‑9‑1980 sold the aforesaid property to one Naseer Khan. According to the plaintiff/petitioner the subsequent sale was not binding on him and consequently be prayed for specific per formance of the agreement above‑mentioned in his favour which was prior in time than the sale to Naseer Khan. In the said suit issues regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the agreement have been duly framed and the case is now at the trial stage. It appears that having become aware of the suit, the vendors/vendee got an F. I. R. registered against the petitioner under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 109, P. P. C. complaining that he had forged the agreement on which he had relied in his suit. The petitioner applied for a pre‑arrest bail in the High Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous Appli cation No. 1555‑B of 1981 and an ad interim bail was granted to him which, however, was later not confirmed on 27‑6‑1981, on the ground that the petitioner had taken time to produce a copy of the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Court but had not produced the same. The High Court, however, made no reference at all to the nature or merits of the case.
2. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties herein and also the learned counsel for the vendors/vendee above mentioned.
3. From what has been stated above it will be evident that when the ques tion regarding the genuineness otherwise of the agreement dated 31‑12‑197 was sub judice before the Civil Court, launching of a criminal case or pro secution was nothing but an abuse or process of law which was apparently resorted to for putting pressure on the petitioner, and from that point o view constituted a good ground for a pre‑arrest bail. When confronted with this situation learned counsel for the vendors/vendee submitted that the petitioner had not been joining the investigation. However, the investigation Officer who was present in the Court along with the record submitted that this was not so and that the petitioner had been joining the investigation. The learned counsel for the complainant then submitted that the petitioner has so far nowhere produce the original agreement and was keeping it secret to stifle the investigation by the Police. It may be pointed out that the original agreement duly existed on the record of the High Court and was noticed by this Court on 29‑7‑1981, when the operation of the High Court order impugned herein was suspended. The aforesaid order may be con sidered as a part of the present order.
4. As the order of the High Court omitted to make any reference to the nature or merits of the case and was based on some mere deficiency of its record which could have been made good by granting further time to do the needful or by summoning the record, and was no ground to cancel the bail earlier granted, we grant leave to appeal to the petitioner and con verting the present petition into an appeal accept the same and set aside the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the petitioner would remain on bail on the terms of the earlier order of the High Court as directed in earlier order of this Court dated 29‑7‑1981.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer