2010 PLP 589 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner Muhammad Salman through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.283 originally registered under sections 420, 468 and 471 P.P.C. with Police Station, City Burewala, District Vehari on 18-4-2009. Later on the police have deleted sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. and substituted these with sections 477, 201, 109 P.P.C., in the same.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that Muhammad Salman, stamp Vendor on 6.11.2007 has issued stamp paper and thereupon an agreement to sell was written on it and later on he using his position with dishonest and fraudulent intention destroyed the same from the official record.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is everybody's case before me that another F.I.R. No.533/2008, under sections 420, 452, 468 and 471, P.P.C. was registered with the same police station i.e. City Burewala, District Vehari on 9-7-2008 regarding the same alleged forged agreement to sell. I have been informed that the said case stood cancelled by the police.

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mst. Salamat Jehan and her husband Muhammad Hanif, the alleged vendors have brought declaratory suit before the competent civil Court Burewala regarding the same asserting it to be without consideration, under coercion and result of fraud and so inoperative upon their rights and the same is pending adjudication and till such time any verdict is delivered therein, it cannot be said that he in fact has destroyed the evidence or record of such agreement and his case, thus, calls for further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars; and that none of the offences alleged against him is covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the copy of the plaint in the said declaratory suit titled Muhammad Hanif and another v Shahid Ahmad. The same shows that they both have challenged the legitimacy or genuineness of the agreement to sell in question. So, it is very much certain that any verdict regarding the said question in relation to the aforesaid document is to be delivered therefrom and till such time the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so, the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars. None of the offences alleged against him is covered within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr. P.C.

6. In these, circumstances, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.

7. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court. N.H.Q./M-814/L Bail allowed.