2008 PLP 863 (MLD)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.

The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.277 of 2006, dated 1-7-2006 under sections 468, 471 and 420, P.P.C. at Police Station City Chichawantni, District Sahiwal.

2. Earlier the post-arrest bail of the petitioner has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide order, dated 22-9-2006.

3. The brief allegation against the petitioner as stated by the complainant is that the land is managed by him, till April, 2006 the agricultural land owned by his son was on lease with Javed Abbas, however, the possession of the land was relinquished on 29-4-2006, and the possession was handed over by the complainant to the concerned lease holder. Later on he came to know that Javed Abbas has prepared a forged agreement of lease and has filed a suit in the Court of Tehsildar, Chichawatni by annexing the said agreement, wherein it was stated that agricultural land was on lease with him from April, 2003 to April, 2007. Further that the agreement is forged, fictitious and has been signed by the petitioner as a marginal witness.

4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is fake and fictitious and that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Further contended that the petitioner is innocent, the alleged Iqrar Nama does not contain the signatures of the petitioner rather the signatures of the petitioner was affixed by the principal accused Javed Abbas, the same has been vitrified by the I.O. Further stated that there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the co-accused Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Ashraf had been allowed bail by this Court having the similar role as that of the petitioner and taking into consideration the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of post-arrest bail. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Muhammad Umar v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), and Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1875).

5. On the other hand, bail petition has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned D.P.G. on the ground that the case of the co-accused Muhammad Arshad is not at par with that of the petitioner. It is further stated that once a pre-arrest bail has been decided on merits and the grounds taken in the pre-arrest bail are the same in the post-arrest bail, the bail cannot be granted. Reliance is placed on (1990 ALD 650) and (2005 PCr.LJ 1797).

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. The instant petition was heard on 8-10-2007 and the bail was allowed. Consequently, learned counsel for the complainant entered appearance before signing the order and stated that this Court had earlier refused to hear Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7074/B of 2006 on the same subject matter and of the same petitioner. It is clarified that it was a pre-arrest bail and in that case a counsel from Lahore intended to supersede the original counsel for the petitioner, as such, this Court had refused to hear the petitioner, therefore, the same has no effect on the instant petition. Further the learned counsel for the complainant was allowed to make his submissions.

8. Previously the bail of the co-accused Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Ashraf had been granted by this Court vide order, dated 18-6-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1253-B of 2007 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 429-B of 2007. The case of the petitioner is at par with that of the accused, who had been granted bail. The petitioner is allegedly only the marginal witness of the agreement and he is not the beneficiary of the transaction. The petitioners are behind the bars and to keep the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period would amount to punishment before trial. Therefore, keeping in view the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail. Relying upon the cases of Imtiaz v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1107), Aurangzeb alias Ranga v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1299 and Fida Hussain v. The State and others 2002 SCMR 46 and following the rule of consistency, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned. H.B.T./R-9/L Bail granted.