1989 P Cr (PLP)

Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners. S.D. Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd January, 1989. The petitioners Sikandar Ali Khan and Rifat Ali Khan, have moved this petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against them under section 419/109/468/471, P.P.C. at Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad vide F.I.R. No. 190, dated 4‑5‑1988.

2. The allegation is that petitioners produced a fictitious woman before the Arbitration Council and thereafter got recorded her false statement whereby petitioner No.1 was given permission to contract second marriage. On the basis of this bogus permission obtained by the petitioner by committing fraud and misrepresentation, he was able to contract second marriage. Accordingly, the above‑referred case was registered against him on the statement of Mst. Muqarrab Begum, his first wife.

3. The learned counsel submits that firstly a case under section 419/109, P.P.C. was registered and later on offences under section 468/471. P.P.C. were added in the challan. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that the petitioners were allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 22‑12‑1988 regarding the offences allegedly committed by them under section 468/471, P.P.C. On this basis he states that maximum sentence in the above offences is seven years' R.I. and on the strength of this he states that they should have also been allowed bail under section 419/109, P.P.C. wherein similar is the maximum sentence. The learned counsel submits that this is a case of further enquiry inasmuch as there is no evidence at all to connect the petitioners with the commission of the crime. The learned State counsel has half‑heartedly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. He submits that serious offence has been committed by the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioners were admitted to bail under section 468/471, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge on 22‑12‑19138 and that they should have also been released on bail under section 419/109, P.P.C. However, vide the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 15‑12‑1988 the bail of the petitioners was cancelled. In my view, there was no justification whatsoever with the learned Sessions Judge not to allow bail to the petitioners under section 419/109,' P.P.C. especially when he had allowed bail to them under section 468/471, P.P.C. vide the same order. In both the set of offences similar amount of sentence is to be awarded for the commission of the offence. This being so,' exercise of discretion by the learned Sessions Judge in not allowing bail to the petitioners under section 419/109, P.P.C. was not proper and fair. In my view, this is a case of further enquiry. The petitioners are, therefore, admitted to‑bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Faisalabad. The trial Court is directed to, conclude trial of the petitioners within three months from the date of the submission of the challan. H.B.T./S‑366/L Bail granted.