2008 PLP 1075 (YLR)

ZUBDA TUL HUSSAIN, J.

This bail petition arises in a case, which formulates an unfortunate episode of serious dispute on property between the father and son, consequently leading to the registration of case F.I.R: No. 164/ 2007, dated 10-6-2007, under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. at Police Station T.T. Singh.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he with the aid of the co-accused manoeuvred the preparation of a power of attorney and its registration in the absence of the complainant while he was abroad. On the basis of the said power of attorney, major part of the land belonging to the complainant was transferred by the petitioner in the name of his wife as well as the son-in-law of the complainant.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that-it is a case of false implication as the complainant has himself executed and testified the power of attorney before the journey abroad of the complainant. It has been stated that on the relevant date of execution and registration of the power of attorney the complainant had not yet proceeded abroad and was present and available in Pakistan for the execution of the disputed documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that besides the alienation of complainant's land in the name of his wife, the petitioner had executed similar two other transactions being in favour of the son-in-law of the complainant but the complainant has raised alarm only against the alienation of land to petitioner's wife. According to the learned counsel, the power of attorney i.e. basis of such transfer, being the same should have common effect in all these dealings. If the complainant accepts the genuineness of one of such transfer of land, he cannot dispute the genuineness of the power of attorney in relation to the alienation. Additionally it has also been stated that the offence as such does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section. 497, Cr.P.C.

4. The learned DPG has vehemently argued that the petitioner has betrayed the confidence of his father and the commission of forgery etc., on his part against the interest of his own father disentitles him of the discretionary relief of bail.

5. Admittedly on 22-5-2004, the complainant was present in Pakistan and he proceeded aboard on 24-5-2004. The disputed power of attorney was executed on 22-5-2004, which fact is glaringly apparent from the stamp of the Sub-Registrar. T.T. Singh. On behalf of the prosecution reference has been made to the date of 27th of March endorsed on the upper right corner of the back page of the power of attorney along with the signatures of the Sub-Registrar and it has been stated that in fact the document was presented on 27-3-2004 instead of 22-3-2004. Be that as it may, at this stage it is not possible to conclude the facts of the initial signatures of the Sub-Registrar on the corner of the back page of the power of attorney. For the present mentioned date of power of attorney, shall be deemed to be 22-3-2004 i.e. the date on which the complainant had not proceeded abroad. The above facts are available on the record today produced by the police before this Court. It is also note-worthy that more than one transfers were conducted by the petitioner on the basis of the impugned power of attorney but by now and as per record only one of such transfers effected in favour of the wife of the petitioner has been disputed. It goes without saying that the validity or in-validity of the power of attorney should be equally applicable to all the alienations made by the petitioner and at this stage it is not possible to decipher among them.

6. All the above facts and circumstances lead to an inference that it is a case of further enquiry against the petitioner. He is, therefore, entitled to the concession of bail. The bail petition is allowed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-36/L Bail granted.