' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 411, dated 12-7-2005, registered under sections 448/ 34/380/420/471/468, P.P.C. At Police Station City Daska Sialkot.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that Shahzad Ali co- accused had obtained I.D. Card of the complainant and his sister for the purpose of attestation of mutation of inheritance. Later on Shahzad Ali and Muhammad Arshad petitioner managed to prepare forged agreement to sell and they illegally occupied the house of the complainant. The petitioner along with co-accused Shahzad Ali also took away household articles lying in the house of the complainant. Hence, the instant case was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Daska which on account of compromise effected between the parties has been withdrawn on 1-11-2005 and the complainant also made statement while raising no objection if the petitioner is granted bail, that the parties have entered into a compromise to end their litigation and bail should be granted to the petitioner; that the original document has not been taken into possession by the police or sent to the office of Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures of the complainant and for the time being there is no sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime; that the petitioner is behind the bars and nothing is to be recovered from him; that offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable while the other offences are non-cognizable; that delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Has not been explained; that no date and time of the occurrence has been mentioned; that earlier the complainant had moved an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Seeking direction for registration of the case, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Daska vide order dated 12-7-2005, but on the same facts the police has registered the case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner previously is involved in 10 criminal cases, who appears to be criminal bent of mind and there are chances of repetition of offence if the petitioner is released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The disputed agreement has been placed as Annexure-D with allegedly was executed on 19-5- 2005 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner claimed to have paid total consideration of Rs,10,00,000 settled for the sale to the complainant and obtained possession of the said property.
The petitioner had also filed a suit for permanent injunction on 9-6-2005 on the basis of said agreement but the said suit was later on dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1-11-2005 on the statement of the petitioner that on account of compromise effected between the parties he withdrew from the prosecution of the suit and also undertook not to file any suit regarding the disputed house. This stance taken by the petitioner supports the contents of the F.I.R. That the said document was forged by the petitioner and it was not executed by the complainant. Otherwise, he would not have restrained himself from filing any suit for taking any action against the complainant, when he claimed to have paid the total consideration amount to the complainant at the time of alleged execution of the agreement to sell. The petitioner is also previously involved in 10 criminal cases out of which three cases are of similar nature for preparation of forged documents and five cases are under the Arms Ordinance. The petitioner appears to be criminal bent of mind and there are chances of repetition of offence, if he is enlarged on bail. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner vide order dated 1-11-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, is concerned, suffice it to say that the ;offences in the preset case are not compoundable. The discretion for grant of bail cannot be exercised at the option of the complainant, but the Courts have to act judiciously according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner is prima facie connected with the commission of offence, who has failed to show any reason for his false implication in the present case. The offence under section 467, P.P.C. Is also prima facie made out against the petitioner as through the alleged forged document a huge amount of Rs,10 lac was shown to be received by the complainant, who then agreed to transfer his valuable property in favour of the petitioner. The said offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' For the forgoing discussion, this bail petition having no merit is dismissed.