Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 34--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Dishonestly prepared registered sale-deed and transferred complainant property in his favour--Petitioner has not prepared any forged document, which is necessary element to constitute offence under Section 468-N, PPC--Even otherwise Section 468, PPC does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C--Offence under Section 420, PPC is bailable in nature--Besides above, said registered sale deed has not been challenged before any forum by complainant--There is nothing on record to establish that transfer of disputed property in his favour was in knowledge of petitioner--Prima facie, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect petitioner with commission of alleged offence--Liability of petitioner would be determined by trial Court having recourse to evidence--Petitioner is behind bars since his arrest without any progress in trial of case--Nothing incriminating material was recovered from petitioner during investigation of case--Besides, case of prosecution is entirely based upon documentary evidence and relevant record has already been collected and seized by Investigating Officer and same is in custody of prosecution, hence, there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence--Petition wasw accepted.
[P. 974] A & B
Ch. Daud Ahmed Wains, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, DPG for State.
Ch. Abdur Razzaq, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 10.6.2020.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 973
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD MUBASHIR--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2197-B of 2020, decided on 10.6.2020.
Order
Through this petition under Section 497 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Muhammad Mubashir seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 40/2020, dated 06.4.2020, offences under Sections 420, 468, 34, PPC, registered with the Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal, at the instance of Mst. Naseem Bibi complainant.
2. As per narration of crime report, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused dishonestly prepared registered sale deed and transferred the complainant’s property in his favour.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. The petitioner is assigned role of receiving complainant’s property in his favour. Admittedly, there was a dispute of property between the complainant and petitioner’s father, who later on got transferred his share in favour of the petitioner via registered sale deed. The said registered sale deed is entered in the relevant register of Sub-Registrar concerned. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has not prepared any forged document, which is necessary element to constitute the offence under Section 468, PPC. Even otherwise Section 468 PPC does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The, offence under Section 420 PPC is bailable in nature.
5. Besides above, the said registered sale deed has not been challenged before any forum by the complainant. There is nothing on record to establish that the transfer of disputed property in his favour was in the knowledge of the petitioner. Prima facie, the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. The liability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court having recourse to the evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest without any progress in the trial of the case. Nothing incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of the case. Besides, case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the documentary evidence and relevant record has already been collected and seized by the Investigating Officer and same is in the custody of the prosecution, hence, there is no apprehension of tampering with
prosecution evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Ayaz Ahmad Khan v. The State and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 171).
6. For the above reasons, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Petition accepted
0 Comments