' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,576 dated 27-8-2005, registered under sections 440/ 448/468/471/419, P.P.C. At Police Station Satellite Town District Sargodha on the application of Mst.
Naseema Qureshi.
2. The complainant has stated that she purchased Plot No,208 Block-A, measuring 13 Marlas, 23 Square feet situated at Housing Project Chak No,46 District Sargodha for an amount of Rs,62867.80 and possession certificate was issued in favour of the complainant on 15-4-1991 and on the basis of sale-deed said plot was transferred vide Mutation No,3234 in the Revenue Department in her name. Subsequently, she intended to sell the said plot and for that purpose she approached the Revenue Department for obtaining Fard and she came to know that said plot has been transferred in the name of Ghulam Rasool and (sic) they have impersonated the complainant and Qamar Rasheed Khan, Advocate has identified the said woman who appeared in place of the complainant and sale-deed No,3053 was executed on 14-1-2003 and after removing the construction over the boundary wall, possession thereof was taken over by them in spite of the fact that the complainant had never appeared before the Registrar, Sargodha and also had not transferred the plot but all the proceedings were fraudulent. It is also alleged by the complainant that she is real owner of the said plot and said plot could not be transferred due to the instructions issued by Secretary Punjab Co-operative Board, and the accused have committed the above said offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aged about 71 years and nothing is to be recovered from his possession and he is behind the bars. It is further contended that he had only signed the sale-deed as a witness and is not the beneficiary of the said sale, but on the asking of one Atiq-ur-Rehman he had signed the sale-deed. It is next contended that the petitioner is not involved in any case failing within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that heinous offence has been committed by the petitioner in connivance with the co- accused and the petitioner has arranged for production of another woman in place of the complainant. He is property dealer and this is profession of the petitioner. It is also contended that forged I.D. Card of the complainant was also prepared and the petitioner is also involved in another criminal case vide F.I.R. No,296, dated 9-8-2005 registered under sections 468/ 471/419/420, P. P. C .
At Police Station Cantt., Sargodha and this application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned State counsel also opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner when appeared had admitted his signatures on the sale-deed before the Investigating Officer.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
7. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he is the witness of the sale-deed and the petitioner is aged about 71 years and has attached photocopy of I.D. Card according to which he was born in the year 1934 and age itself brings infirmity. Reliance is placed on PCr.LJ 1972 Lahore
852. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not involved in any case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. To the extent of involvement of the petitioner, I don't find any exceptional circumstances to refuse bail to the petitioner as there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was the actual beneficiary of the said deed. On the other hand, when the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer he got recorded his statement to the effect that one Atiq-ur-Rehman had told him that he wanted to sell the said plot and he had nothing to do with the said plot. As far as involvement of the petitioner in other case is concerned, it is informed that in the said case bail has already been granted to the petitioner.
8. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.