2007 PLP 2005 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AZAM and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2005 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2005 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2005 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2005 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AZAM and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Nasim Kashmiri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471
Complainant purchased plot in question from one of the co-sharer of said property with specific boundary
Possession of the same was handed over and a boundary wall was raised/constructed by the complainant
Accused party being co-sharer, tried to sell same on the pretext that mutation recorded in the name of complainant on the basis of registered sale deed was set aside and same land was gifted to one of accused persons by his father who further sold same to other accused
In order to usurp the land of complainant, on the pretext of undivided Khata, a gift was created by accused without delivering possession, and on the basis of that, a document was prepared to transfer land to accused while doing so, accused escaped the sight of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of complainant
Mutation would hot confer any title and cancellation of mutation would not affect the title of the complainant--Accused had failed to make out a case for grant of bail
Accused tried to bribe S.H.O. to get possession of the .land and F.I.R. was recorded against him on the complaint of S.H.O.
All that had reflected on the mala fide and criminal intention of accused
Challan had been submitted in the Court and charge had been framed
No case for grant of bail was made out. Ch. Ansar Ijaz for the Complainant. Mian Makshoof Amjad and M. Aslam Malik with Mahboob Aslam, A.S.-I. with record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.5615-B of 2006 (Muhammad Azam v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.7259-B of 2006 (Muhammad Ameer v. The State) as these bail petitions pertain to the same F.I.R.
2. Petitioners-Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Ameer, have sought for their post-arrest bail, in case vide F.I.R. No.138, dated 27-3-2006, offences under sections, .420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Sialkot for the allegations of preparing a forged sale-deed No.435 deceitfully to grab the property of the complainant and also to get physical possession of the same, hence, this case.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent - and have been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. The provisions of sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. are not (sic) deceived any person nor they have prepared any false documents. The petitioners purchased the plot from its lawful owner after consulting the Revenue Record with consideration of Rs.13,50,000 vide .registered sale-deed. The case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt. Further contends that offence under section 420, P.P.C. is bailable and remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars and are no more required for any useful purpose, therefore, they deserve the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that the complainant purchased the plot in question, from one of the co-sharer with specific boundaries: Possession of the same was handed over and a boundary wall was raised/constructed by the complainant. The accused party being co-sharer, tried to sell the same on the pretext that the mutation recorded in the name of the complainant on the basis of registered sale-deed was set aside and the same land was gifted to Muhammad Ameer by his father Muhammad Yousaf, who further sold the same to Muhammad Azam. It appears that in order to usurp the land of the complainant, on the pretext of undivided Khata, a gift created by accused without delivering possession and on the basis of that a document was prepared to transfer the land to Muhammad Azam. While doing so, the petitioners escaped the sight of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant. It is settled law that mutation does not confer any title and thus cancellation of mutation does not affect the title of the complainant. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Muhammad Azam petitioner tried to bribe the S.H.O. to get possession of the land and the F.I.R. was recorded against him on the complaint of S.H.O. All reflect on the mala fide and. criminal intention of the petitioners. Challan has been submitted in the Court and charge has been framed.
6. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of bail is made out hence, this bail petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-244/L Bail refused.