2010 P Cr (PLP)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Saleem Akhtar through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.51 originally registered under sections 379/468/471, P.P.C. with Police Station Sinawan, District Muzaffargarh on 21-2-2009. Later on the police have deleted the offence under section 379, P.P.C. in the same and substituted it for one under section 409, P.P.C.

2. Briefly the allegation against him as contained in the F.I.R. is that he about eight years ago had unlawfully kept the official Revenue Record pertaining to Mouza Patti Ghulam Ali Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh in his possession and forged the record of mutations in respect of the same.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is about eight years delay in lodging the F.I.R. This is quite significant delay. Anyway, I would not discuss this aspect of the matter anymore as it may not be prejudicial to the case of the either of the parties at any subsequent stage.

4. It is the contention from his side that this is a second F.I.R. regarding the same allegation as is contained in the earlier case F.I.R. No. 41 registered on 24-5-2004 with Police Station Anti Corruption, District Muzaffargarh. The learned DPG in consultation with S.-I./ Investigating Officer present in Court has frankly conceded to the same.

5. In these circumstances, it is yet to be seen that if he can be held liable in the instant case for the same offence as is alleged in the aforesaid F.I.R. No.41 of 2004 of Police Station Anti-Corruption, District Muzaffargarh. He, admittedly was allowed bail in that earlier case on 30-3-2009 by his lordship Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., calling for further inquiry into his guilt.

6. It has been argued by the prosecution's side that he is involved in at least other sixteen cases of the type. In the case of "Muhammad Rafique v. The State" (1997 SCMR 412), it has been held by their lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that involvement of accused in number of cases of robbery was not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty.

7. In these circumstances of the case, I find him entitled to the relief prayed for. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Deputy Magistrate/Trial Court. N.H.Q./M-769/L Bail allowed.