2010 PLP 546 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner Aftab Ahmad through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.228 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar, Khanewal on 13-6-2009.

2. Briefly the allegation against him as per the F.I.R. is that he had forged a receipt showing payment of Rs.7,50,000 to the complainant in respect of transaction of land and attached the same with suit for specific performance of the contract filed by him before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is the own case of the complainant in the F.I.R. that the alleged forged receipt is annexed to the said suit pending adjudication before the aforementioned Court. So, the same is also in a way subject-matter of the suit. Hence, the question regarding its validity or otherwise is to be determined therefrom. It may be in due course of time and till such time, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt and the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars since 26-6-2009. This period is spread over about four months. Besides than this, the fact also remains that the offences under sections 420, 471, P.P.C. are bailable, whereas the one under section 468 is not covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

4. I may mention here that the learned counsel for the complainant has cited the case of "The State v. Muhammad Jawwad Ghani" (2004 PCr.LJ 1610 Lahore) in support of his plea that he does not deserve bail in the given circumstances of the case as he intended to grab the land of the complainant. I am afraid that the esteemed authority has proceeded on different facts and circumstances than that of his case. It is needless to mention here that it is settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances and the facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide. A precedent will be applicable, when it will be on all fours to the given case. It is also argued by him that he is involved in at least five other criminal cases and the same shows that he is a hardened and desperate criminal. He has shown the copies of some F.I.Rs. I am afraid that mere pendency of number of criminal cases against an accused would hardly constitute a valid ground to refuse relief of bail to him, if his case may, otherwise be one for same.

5. In this view of the matter, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. However, the learned trial Court shall conclude his trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of next six months from today. N.H.Q./A-319/L Bail allowed.