' Saeed Ahmad, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,18 dated 17-1-2003 under section 419/420/467/ 468/471, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Millat Park, Lahore.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant is living in England for the last about thirty years. His parents have lot of landed property at different places. One of these is Plot No,97 measuring 17 Marlas and 45 feet in Mauza Pakki Thutthi Lahore.
The same is in the name of his mother, who had died about eighteen years ago. Saeed Ahmad (petitioner) on 22-4-2002 through Ch. Abdul Ghani, Advocate and others has got registered sale deed in respect of the same in his favour by producing another woman in place of his mother Mst.
Mumtaz Begum alias Kaneez Fatima and so the same is forged one.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he has in bona fide manner purchased the said plot and the real owner of the same was produced at the time of registration of the document in question while the mother of the complainant has nothing to do with the same; that complainant with mala fide intention has shown his mother to be the owner of that plot; that both the parties have gone to the Civil Court with their respective claim and the question of validity or otherwise of the document of sale-deed is to be gone into there; that apparently the document in question does not fall within the definition of valuable security as used in section 467, P.P.C. And so his case comes out of the ambit of the same; that the rest of the offences with which he has been charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel ' assisted by the learned complainant's counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that in view of the death certificate of complainant's deceased mother prima facie the above-mentioned offences are made out in the instant case; and that the offence under section 467, P.P.C. Does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have carefully considered the above contentions with the help of available record.
6. Admittedly, both the parties had gone to the Civil Court with their respective claim in respect of their disputed plot. The petitioner's side has filed the certified copies of the plaints in their respective suits today. Thus, the question of genuineness or otherwise of the said document i.e, sale-deed is subjudice before the competent Civil Court. It is yet to be decided therefrom that if the same was executed genu'inely or that it is forged one. Hence, without adverting to any other aspect of the matter, it can safely be said that the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is covered under sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court.