FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.5615-B of 2006 (Muhammad Azam v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.7259-B of 2006 (Muhammad Ameer v. The State) as these bail petitions pertain to the same F.I.R.
2. Petitioners-Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Ameer, have sought for their post-arrest bail, in case vide F.I.R. No. 138, dated 27-3-2006, offences under sections, 420,468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Sialkot for the allegations of preparing a forged sale-deed No.435 deceitfully to grab the property of the complainant and also to get physical possession of the same, hence, this case.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. The provisions of sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are not (sic) deceived any person nor they have prepared any false documents. The petitioners purchased the plot from its lawful owner after consulting the- Revenue Record with consideration of Rs. 13,50,000 vide , registered sale-deed. The case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt. Further contends that offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable and remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars and are no more required for any useful purpose, therefore, they deserve the concession Of bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,' it manifests that the complainant purchased the plot in question, from one of the cosharer with specific boundaries.
Possession of the same was handed over and a boundary wall was raised/constructed by the complainant. The accused party being co-sharer, tried to sell the same on the pretext that the mutation recorded in the name of the complainant on the basis of registered sale-deed was set aside and the same land was gifted to Muhammad Ameer by his father Muhammad Yousaf, who further sold the same to Muhammad. Azam. It appears that in order to usurp the land of the complainant, on the pretext of undivided Khata, a gift created by accused without delivering possession and on the basis of that a document was prepared to transfer the land to Muhammad Azam. While doing so, the petitioners escaped the sight of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant. It is settled law that mutation does not confer any title and thus cancellation of mutation does not affect the title of the complainant. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Muhammad Azam- petitioner tried to bribe the S.H.O. To get possession of the land and the F.I.R. Was recorded against him on the complaint of S.H.O.. All reflect on the mala fide and criminal intention of the petitioners. Challan has been submitted in the Court and charge has been framed.
6. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of bail is made out, hence, this bail petition is dismissed.