' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ibrahim son of Jagmal, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.24/2005,registered with Police Station ACE, Lahore, for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The prosecution story has been given in some detail in the order of this Court dated 16-1-2006, recorded in Crl. Misc. No.9038-B/05 which had been moved by Muhammad Akbar Ali, a co- accused of the petitioner, as such the facts need not be reiterated here.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 5-7-2005, and is in custody ever since. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, who dismissed his application vide order dated 30-11-2005. Hence this petition.
4. Syed Karamat Ali Naqvi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner whose father's name was Jagmal had made an application to the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Annex-`G' praying therein that he had been deprived of the property belonging to his father and the property which actually belonged to his father had been allotted to one Jagmal son of Bhamboo, therefore, necessary correction be made; that the revenue authorities acknowledged the claim of the petitioner and made necessary corrections as a result whereof Collector :(Consolidation) vide order dated 8-5-2004 endorsed the earlier order of the DDO(C) whereby it had been held that the petitioner was entitled to 35 Kanals-11 Marlas of land; that after acquiring full propriety rights the petitioner sold away his land to Defence Housing Authority, Lahore Cantt, as such the petitioner has committed no offence; that in fact the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and both the parties are laying claims and counter-claims regarding the ownership of the property; that in the bail applicadon of Muhammad Akbar Ali (Crl. Petition No.72-L of 2006) the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that it is yet to be proved whether the revenue record through correction mutation was correctly changed or not because the correction mutation was attested through the revenue officer after inquiry under the rules; that the observations recorded by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Akbar Ali (Crl.
Petition 72-L/06.) on the basis of which bail had been allowed to him, are equally applicable to the petitioner.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner had been arraigned in the same transaction earlier vide F.I.R. No. 244/04 dated 25-8-2004 -registered at Police Station Satrah, Tehsil Daska District Sialkot under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. Wherein vide order dated 3-1-2005 by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala he had been allowed bail as such registration of the instant FIR is not warranted; that at any rate the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application. In support of his arguments he submitted that Ibrahim was son of Jagmal son of Hussaina, who were residents of Rampur, Tehsil Daska District Sialkot; that Jugmal died on 23-5-1993 and in the Death Register of Union Council Akbar, Tehsil Daska, Disrict Sialkot his name and parentage was recorded as Jagmal son of Hussaina; however, later on by manoeuvring Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner got parentage of Jagmal changed from Hussaina to Badlu in the record in connivance with Muhammad Iqbal who was the then Secretary of the Union Council; that the said Secretary Union Council on 24-3-2004 issued a certificate in the name of Jugmal son of Badlu, on the strength of which the present petitioner got the land allotted at Lahore in Mauza Ladhar; that the inheritance mutation was sanctioned after the death of Jagmal wherein again the parentage of Jagmal was shown as Hussaina and his other legal heirs were Malooki widow, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ibrahim sons and Mst. Fajri daughter and the said mutation was sanctioned on 6-9-1994; that one Jagmal son of Bhamboo had filed two claims under the settlement scheme i.e. Claim forms No.1017 and 1018 and he was allotted land measuring 41 Kanals 15 Marlas against both of his claims; that in the record pertaining to 35 Kanals 11 Marlas proposed on 12-12-1953 at RL-II Khata No.235 the parentage of Jagmal was inadvertently written as Badlu instead of Bhamboo; that this anomaly was pointed out somewhere in the year 1964 as a result of which some inquiry was held by the Enforcement Staff which culminated in the order dated 17-2-1965 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner who corrected the parentage and the correct parentage i.e. Jagmal son of Bhamboo was substituted; that 35 Kanals 11 Marlas of land was finally confirmed on 11-6-1966 in the name of Jagmal son of Bhamboo; that thereafter on the basis of a form submitted by Jagmal son of Badloo the revenue staff in connivance with the petitioner exploited the wrong entry of parentage notwithstanding the fact that the same had been corrected later on and thereby deprived the complainant of his valuable land measuring 35 Kanals 11 Marlas; not only that he sold the said land later on to Defence Housing Authority for heavy consideration; that the revenue authorities have now taken stock of the matter and the Executive District Officer (R) in his order dated 27-9-2005 has held that fraud had been committed by the petitioner and the Consolidation Staff and has recommended registration of criminal cases against the delinquents. The learned counsel further argued that after depriving the complainant of his valuable property the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of the Defence Housing Authority, Lahore and thereby rendered himself eligible for nine valuable residential plots in Defence Housing Authority valued at approximately ninety million rupees; that the Housing Authority has been prevented to issue files to the petitioner on account of an injunctive order in a civil suit filed by the complainant. He finally argued that the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of his co-accused Muhammad Akbar Ali can by no stretch of the argument be made applicable to the petitioner who is the real moving force behind the entire incident and the ultimate beneficiary.
' The learned counsel finally argued. That Muhammad Iqbal co-accused of the petitioner who had a comparatively limited role to play had been refused bail by this court which order has been sustained by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. He added that the petitioner has been found to be guilty, challan has been submitted and the trial is likely to commence shortly; that it would be interesting to note that at Ram Pur Tehsil Daska District Sialkot the petitioner had a brother, widowed mother and a sister whereas at Lahore he avowed to be the only legal heir of Jagmal.
6. Syed Khalid Bukhari, Advocate the learned counsel for the State has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate with added vigour and submitted that in view of the size of the fraud the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Azam S.-I. Police Station ACE, Lahore.
8. I tend to agree with Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate the learned counsel for the complainant that there is ample material available against the petitioner, prima facie, establishing his complicity in the fraud. In fact from the material available on record it can, prima facie, be safely stated that the petitioner was the one who was the initiator of the fraud and he was the one who was the ultimate beneficiary of the same. A perusal of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Muhammad Akbar Ali v. The State' (Criminal Petition No.72-L of 2006) would show that the petitioner cannot take advantage of .The said order inasmuch as bail had been allowed to Muhammad Akbar who was a Patwari in the Irrigation Department and the Honourable Supreme Court had held that there was no direct evidence/ material available against him connecting him with the commission of any offence with regard to changes in the revenue record.
9. Resultantly this petition meritless is hereby dismissed.