' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---This order will dispose of two connected bail applications bearing Cr1.
Miscellaneous No,3148/B of 2006 (Muhammad Ijaz v. The State) and Crl. Miscellaneous No,3059/B of 2006 (Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State), through which Muhammad Ijaz and Muhammad Bakhsh, the petitioners, seek pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,590, dated 1-11-2005, registered at Police Station, Korwali, District Jhang for offences under sections 420, 466, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. The case of prosecution as it unfurled in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Khadim Hussain son of Noor Muhammad complainant was that he had purchased a one kanal plot in Mauza Ashaba Shumali from Muhammad Bakhsh and others, out of their joint property; on 7-7-2005, Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Aslam, Khadim Hussain, Akram and Zahoor Ahmad came to his house and stated that since the property bought by him was out of joint Khata, therefore, he should accompany them to get his share partitioned; the accused persons took him to Muhammad Ijaz, Patwari (petitioner), where father of Muhammad Bakhsh was already present; the petitioner obtained his thumb-impressions on various forms and told him that he was free and that necessary partition would be made on 22-7-2005, Ghulam Muhammad son of Lal came to him and asked if he had sold his plot; on inquiry it was found out that the accused persons had got the land mutated in their favour with the connivance of the petitioner, he along with Sajid Hussain and Ghulam Muhammad went to the Tehsildar and informed him about the incident the Tehsildar summoned the Patwari and the accused persons on 3-7-2005, the petitioner presented the record of Mutation No,5569 of 2005, on which occasion the accused persons and the petitioner confessed about their fraud and sought forgiveness; the Tehsildar cancelled the said mutation; the accused persons beseeched him not to get any case registered, however, he decided to report the matter to the police. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioners' respective pleas for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad, who proceeded to dismiss their applications vide orders dated 13-4-2006 and 16-3-2006, respectively. Hence, these petitions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector/CO.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for Muhammad Ijaz (petitioner) that the present petitioner being Patwari had only performed his duty by entering the mutation and had not derived any benefit in the transaction does not appear to be wholly without substance. The record also reveals that no damage has been suffered by the complainant and that if there was any fraud committed, the same had been detected well within time. The affixation of thumb impressions on the relevant papers is not denied. The allegation was that the same had been procured from him fraudulently and by misrepresenting that the same were required for partition proceedings. Presently, there is no material available on the record to prima facie show that the petitioner had forged any public record, therefore, his culpability and the role played by him during the transaction call A for further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise I have told that he had been joining investigation and no recovery is to be effected from him, as such no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars in the offences, which do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, by allowing Crl. Miscellaneous No,3148/B of 2006, I hereby confirm the interim anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner on 25-4-2006 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
6. Insofar as Muhammad Bakhsh (petitioner) is concerned, it has already been stated elsewhere that the transaction had not attained finality and no loss had been suffered by the complainant. It is yet to be determined during the trial as to in what manner the thumb impressions of the complainant had been obtained. This will be done only after recording of some material evidence in the case. He is behind the bars for the last more than four months and is no more required for investigation. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. In view of the fact that the offences with which he has been charged with for the time being do not attract the prohibitory B clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. I am inclined to admit him to post-arrest bail. He is directed to be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.