' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.-The petitioner (Abdul Basat Bajwa) seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,403 of 2007, dated 21-8-2007, offence under sections 419,420,468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sialkot as this post-arrest bail granted by the learned S.J., Sialkot on 17-10-2007, was recalled/cancelled by the successor learned Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 18-5-2008.
2. As per F.I.R. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Basat Bajwa petitioner posed himself to be an advocate and wrongfully gained power of attorney about a valuable property from the father of the complainant and by interpolation added some other property in the power of attorney. It was further stated that the said petitioner/accused had been appearing in different Courts of Sialkot, wearing uniform of an Advocate and committing fraud with litigants, whereas according to letter issued by the Punjab Bar Council the said accused was not enrolled as an Advocate and in this way he committed fraud. The complainant referred an application for grant of pre-arrest bail of one Irfan Ahmad in case F.I.R. No,271 of 2004, under section 337-A(i)/337-F(ii)/ 337 L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Filed by the said petitioner/accused showing himself as an Advocate in the Court of law.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. A bare reading of F.I.R. Itself shows that the execution of power of attorney by the father of the complainant in favour of the petitioner is admitted one. However, the allegation of adding of some property through interpolation was levelled in the F.I.R. But that matter is pending sub judicer between the parties before the learned Civil Court which is the proper forum, that will determine whether any interpolation was made by the petitioner fraudulently or not or the power of attorney was the result of deceitful means. As far as the allegation against the petitioner that he was posing himself as an Advocate when he is not a law graduate, that fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not an Advocate and at the most case against the petitioner is made out under section 419, P.P.C, which is punishable only for three years and that does not fall within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. So in my view the application of provisions of sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Requires further inquiry and none of the provisions falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule whereas refusal is an excsption. Reliance can be placed on PLD 1995 SC 34.
5. Another important aspect of the case is that the petitioner was arrested in the case on 20-9- 2007 when his pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot and thereafter, he was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 17-10-2007, after the dismissal of his post-arrest bail from the learned Magistrate, so it was not a case of only a pre-arrest bail before the learned SJ rather it was a case wherein post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner and the bail granting order could not be recalled or reviewed unless the same was capricious, arbitrary or fanciful or in disregard of the evidence on record. It is settled proposition of law that bail granting order is a pari materia to an acquittal and for interfere in the same, there should be strong and exceptional circumstance, as an acquittal cannot be interfered only on the ground where another eonclusion was possible on the basis of available evidence.
6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, that the bail granting order in favour of the petitioner by the then learned Sessions Judge, dated 17-10-2007 was a conditional order, is of no avail because only ground for cancellation of bail which prevailed with the learned Sessions Judge was that the petitioner was arrested on 20-9-2007 and on 21-9-2007 he was sent to judicial lock-up and no physical remand was given by the learned Area Magistrate and against the said refusal of physical remand the complainant filed revision petition and the same has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. Whereas learned Sessions Judge has not bothered to look into the allegations in the F.I.R., and the stand of accused before the Court has been admitted by the complainant in the F.I.R. That the power of attorney was executed by his father and that matter is pending sub judice and similarly it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not an Advocate.
Even if he was verbally posing himself as an Advocate, then nothing is to be recovered from him, so at any stretch of imagination, bail granting order passed by his predecessor had not stood as a block in the way of investigation. So in my view the impugned order, dated 16-5-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot was not based on any lawful justification rather that was a colourable exercise of jurisdiction, hence this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order, dated 3-6-2008 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.