' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Petitioner has sought his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 5(2)/2004, dated 13-8-2004 registered under section 5/2/47, PCA read with sections 420/467/468, P.P.C. On the complaint of Abdul Qayyum Khan at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Muzaffargarh.
2. Precisely the facts as per prosecution story are that AbdulQayyum Khan Complainant donated his land measuring 43 kanals and 4 marlas in favour of Jamia Hameed Taleemul Quran, Kot Sultan, District Layyah. He alleged than on the instigation of Muhammad Ilyas through anther "Waqafnama" the land owned and possessed by his son namely Anwar Ahmad Khan was proposed and he handed over the sametemporarily to seminary. Consequently, Muhammad Ilyas got sanctioned site-plan from the Municipal Committee. The allegation against petitioner is that he got sanctioned mutation in collusion with his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner isinnocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that offence against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause; that at the time of occurrence petitioner was not Patwari of Halqa concerned and even the beneficiaries of mutation have been bailed out and under the rule of consistency, petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner has been found guilty and connected with offence and is not entitled for concession of bail.
5: I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.. He was arrested on 10-6-2005 and is behind the bars so far. Offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even the beneficiaries of the mutation have already been granted bails and under the rule of consistency petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.