' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-Through this petition Muhammad Arshad Kausari petitioner has sought pre arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1187 registered at Police Station, Lower Mall, Lahore, on 4-10-2006 in respect of offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Earlier on the petitioner had approached the Court of Session, Lahore for the same relief but his application in that respect was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 16-11-2006. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been noticed by me that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of about eleven years. It is not disputed that the offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable. As regards the offence under section 468, P.P.C. The matter of genuineness or otherwise of the relevant documents is admittedly pending before a civil Court at Lahore. An offence under section 468, P.P.C. Does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The prosecution in this case is relying very heavily upon a report of the Finger Print Bureau dated 31-7-2006. The document appended with this petition as Annexure-D, however, shows that on 20-6-2006 the Officer-in- Charge of the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab, Lahore had submitted a memorandum before the relevant civil Court to the effect that the relevant documents which the learned Civil Court wanted to be compared with the thumb-impressions of the deceased were already tampered with and, thus, it was not possible to hold any comparison.
Apart from that there is no evidence available on the record of investigation so far to even assert that it was the petitioner himself who had committed the alleged forgery. As the beneficiaries of the relevant documents happened to be a wife and a minor son of the petitioner, therefore, a presumption is being raised by the prosecution that it must be the petitioner and none else who must have forged the relevant documents. Such a presumption being relied upon by the prosecution overlooks the settled legal position that surmises and conjectures have no place in criminal law. It may not be out of place to mention here that both the beneficiaries of the relevant documents, i.e, the petitioner's minor son and the petitioner's wife have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 16-11-2006.
3. It is admitted at all hands that the petitioner and the complainant are real brothers and that the complainant had instituted a civil suit in respect of the same dispute way back in the year 1996 and the said civil suit is presently pending before a civil Court at Lahore. The record of investigation of this case shows that a brother of the petitioner and of the complainant had himself appeared before the Investigating Officer and had submitted his affidavit to the effect that the relevant documents were genuine and the transactions between the deceased and the son and wife of the petitioner had indeed taken place. An affidavit sworn by a sister of the petitioner and of the complainant is also available on the record of investigation "and the same also confirms the genuineness of the transactions in issue. The dispute in this case is between two real brothers over the property of another brother who has died. The F.I.R. In this case had been lodged by the complainant after a delay of about eleven years when he was very much conscious that the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute as he had himself taken the said dispute to a civil Court about ten years ago. Such a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And the conduct displayed by the complainant in the matter prima facie, provide some meat and substance to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding mala fide implication of the petitioner in the case in hand. According to him the complainant had resorted to criminal prosecution of the petitioner at a very belated stage only to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon the petitioner and to pressurize him to settle the outstanding civil dispute between them.
4. The learned counsel for the State and the Investigating Officer present with the record have confirmed the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and also that nothing is to be recovered from his possession. The Investigating Officer has gone on to state that he requires the petitioner's arrest only to fulfil a formality before submission a challan in connection with this case. I have been shocked by such an attitude of the Investigating Officer. It goes without saying that the honour and dignity of a citizen cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at, the altar of a mere formality.
5. For what has been discussed abovd this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 28-11-2006 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of a fresh bail bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate of Police Station, Lower Mall, Lahore within a period of two weeks from today.
6. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the investigating agency or the learned trial Court in any manner.