PLJ 2011 Cr.C.
(Lahore) 897
[Multan Bench Multan]
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Hafiz
Abdul Rehman Ansari, J.
MUHAMMAD
YAQOOB--Petitioner
versus
STATE and
another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No.
834-B of 2010, decided on 5.4.2010.
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S.
497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 471, 468, 467, 420 &
177--Bail, grant of--Fraud and forgery--Transferred land on strength of power
of attorney--Complainant and accused had got registered criminal
cases--Co-accused of petitioner acted identifier before sub-registrar during
process of registration of document by strength of power of attorney--Land in
question had been returned to petitioner through decree of civil Court after
consenting statement of petitioner in Civil Court--It will not serve any useful
purpose in keeping petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period--Complainant
and petitioner were used to get registered case against each other--Offence
does not fall within prohibitory clause--Grant of bail is rule and refusal is
exception in such like case not falling prohibitory clause and sentence is
which offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor ten years--Bail
was accepted. [P. 899] A
PLD
1997 SC 545.
Mr. Muhammad
Amir Khan Bhutta, Advocate for Petitioner.
Sh. Muhammad Tanveer, Advocate for Complainant.
Syed Mukhtar Masood Bukhari, ADPP for State.
Date of hearing:
5.4.2010.
Order
Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Ali, the petitioner, by filing the
instant bail petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 123/2009 dated
01.03.2009 registered at Police Station Chehlyak,
District Multan far an offence under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 177 P.P.C. at
the instance of Mehboob Ahmad, complainant,
Respondent No. 2.
2. Briefly allegations against the petitioner
are that Muhammad Yaqoob accused/petitioner was general
attorney of his father, who died on 17.06.2008, however, accused/petitioner
knowing that his power was terminated on the death of principal, by fraud and
forgery transferred land measuring 15-Marlas on the strength of power of
attorney in favour of his son on 12.06.2008. Niaz Ahmad, co-accused of the
petitioner acted as identifier before the Sub-Registrar during the process of
registration of the document. During investigation Section 467 PPC has been
added, hence this case.
3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest
bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Multan, who vide order dated 19.10.2009
dismissed the same. Thereafter, petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide order dated 18.02.2009
dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that complainant and the accused petitioners are real brothers; they have got
registered criminal cases against each other, further contends that real mother of the complainant
and the petitioner and sisters support the stance of the petitioner accused and
falsify the stance of the complainant; property in dispute has been returned to
the complainant and there is delay of near about eight months in lodging the
FIR, false implication cannot be ruled out; offence does not fall within the
Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and in such
like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception in cases offence
not falling under Prohibitory Clause and the sentence for which offence is
neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years
as it has been held in cases Imtiaz Ahmad and another
vs. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545), therefore, petitioner is entitled to the
concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted
by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail
on the ground that petitioner is named in the FIR, therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. Earlier Muhammad Yaqoob,
petitioner withdraw bail petition bearing Crl. Misc.
No. 4635-B-2009 vide order dated 23.12.2009. Petitioner and the complainant are
the real brothers. Their father has executed general power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob in his
life time, who died on 07.06.2008. Petitioner
allegedly got transferred the land measuring 15-Marlas on the strength of that
power of attorney in favour of his sons on
12.06.2008. Complainant had filed a civil suit in which the petitioner has
recorded his consenting statement and decree was passed in favour
of the complainant and the land in dispute was transferred in the name of the
complainant. Keeping in view the special circumstances of the case, when the
land in dispute has been returned to the petitioner through the decree of the Civil Court after
recording the consenting statement of the petitioner in the Civil Court, it will not serve any useful
purpose keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.
Complainant and the petitioner are used to get registered case against each
other. Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such like
cases, grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception in cases not falling
under prohibitory clause and the sentence for which offence is neither death
nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years as it has been
held in cases Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs. The State
(PLD 1997 SC 545):
"Even in
case where a person is accused of non-bailable
offence and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, meaning
thereby that the punishment prescribed for the offence is neither
death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years, the
grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal is exception."
8. In the light of above discussion, this
petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject
to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Observations made
above are of tentative in nature will not prejudice the case of either side in
the trial.
(S.L.) Bail accepted.
