2026 PLP 784 (MLD)

Raja Shakeel Ahmad, J.

Through the instant petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C, the petitioner/accused seeks his post arrest bail by setting aside the judgment/order dated 21-12-2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption in Criminal Misc. No. 16/2024 wherein the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption has dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused. Being aggrieved from the judgment/order passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption GB, the petitioner/accused filed the instant petition for his post arrest bail which had been allowed vide my short order dated 13/02/2025.

2. Precise facts of the case as stated in the prosecution file are that, on July 2nd, 2021, the accused obtained two stamp papers bearing serial Nos. 492997 and 492988 form stamp vendor Sardar Ahmed of Gorikote and in connivance with the then Naib Tehsildar Tehsil Shounter, Abdul Rehman and Tahir Ahmed Ansari, prepared forged and backdated registries bearing numbers 71/20 and 84/21. The accused Abdul Rehman affixed his signature and seal to these fake documents/registries backdated to 15th July, 2020 and 25th August, 2020 respectively. Using these fake and forged documents a total of 1410 Kanals of land including common village lands and public grazing land located at Das Kharam were fraudulently sold to one namely Tahir Ahmed Ansari for a sum of Rs. 145 million by the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused Muhammad Farooq received Rs. 20 million through cheque number 5953444, dated 20-07-2020 and Rs. 5 million in cash from the buyer Tahir Ahmed. Hence, after completion of inquiry and approval from the competent authority the Anti-Corruption police lodged FIR No. 13/2024 at Police Station Anti-Corruption HQ Gilgit.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused contended that the petition/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR with mala fide intention just to harass the petitioner/accused. He argued that the prosecution story is self made, fabricated while the petitioner/accused is a law abiding citizen and has no previous criminal history. The counsel for the petitioner/accused further contended that the petitioner/accused filed an application before the court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption GB seeking post arrest bail but the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Gilgit-Baltistan, dismissed the same vide impugned order/judgment dated 21/12/2024 without applying judicious mind. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused argued that the petitioner/accused is not a government servant and the allegation of tampering Revenue record to the extent of the petitioner is absurd and baseless as the custodian of the revenue record is the complainant itself. He further argued that the case of the petitioner/accused is based on documentary evidence which needs deeper appreciation and the case is one of further inquiry, the investigation of case to the extent of the petitioner has been completed and the petitioner/accused is no more required for further investigation. The counsel for the petitioner/accused further contended that the section 409, P.P.C and section 5(2) PCA, 1947, are not applicable to the extent of petitioner in the present case and all the other sections do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C as such the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail as rule and refusal is an exception. He further argued that the petitioner/accused is ready to furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Hon ble Court. Lastly the counsel for the petitioner/accused prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner/accused by accepting the instant petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Prosecutor Anti-Corruption Department G.B vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and contended that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the FIR and the sections mentioned in the FIR fully attract in the case. He further contended that, the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence of forgery and corruption and did not deserve any leniency. The learned Special Prosecutor further contended that the accused/petitioner is directly involved in forgery and there is enough evidence available on prosecution record which connects the petitioner/accused to the commission of the offences labeled against him. The learned Special Prosecutor further contended that the sections 409, P.P.C and 5(2) PCA, 1947 fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. Lastly, he prayed for dismissed of the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments pro and contra at length and perused the record of the case along with relevant provision of the law, with the valuable assistance of counsels for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the accused/petitioner is not a government servant hence the sections 409, P.P.C and section 5(2) PCA are not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case. The co-accused namely Riaz Ahmed son of Muhammad Issa, Acting Naib Tehsildar posted at Assistant Commissioner Office Shounter Astore, and Rana Abdul Sadiq son of Ahmed Jan, Girdawar who were arrested by the police in the instant case have already been granted post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 10/02/205 and another nominated accused Mr. Abdur Rehman the than Naib Tehsildar Shonter is on interim bail as such the present petitioner become entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency. There is unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggest the matter being of private transaction. The piece of land regarding which the transaction is alleged is not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same is recorded as Jagir of Raja s of the area in the revenue documents. The investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner is completed and the petitioner is behind the bar without any trial in the case. There is nothing available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust hence the application of section 409 in the instant matter requires further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner. The other section doesn t fall under the prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is local habitant of the area and the prosecution has not taken the plea of to abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail is not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/petitioner will face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial. Therefore, order dated 24/12/2024 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption was not justified.

7. Considering all above aspects of the case, I had granted bail to the accused/petitioner vide my short order dated 13/02/2025 subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand) with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. These are the reasons for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused.

8. The above findings are tentative in nature and the trial Court need not be influenced in any way. The trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in case. This Petition disposed of accordingly. File. JK/11/GB Bail allowed.