ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J.- Ghulam Abbas petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 90/2008 dated 14.2.2008 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Latif under Sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC regarding the occurrence allegedly taken place on9.3.2006.
2. According to the allegation petitioner on 17.12.2005 pretending himself owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanal 8 marias vide khasra No. 708 situated at Nowshera Sansi Road, Gujranwala entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 67,00,000/-. it is alleged in the FIR that petitioner received Rs. 17,00,000/- as earnest money in presence of witnesses and made commitment to execute sale deed up to 17.5.2006. it is also, the complainant's case that petitioner instead of alienating the disputed property in favour of the complainant got executed another agreement to sell with Yasin Chohan for a consideration of Rs. 72,50,000/- on 9.3.2006.
Afterwards it transpired that the present petitioner was not owner of the piece of land.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and provisions of Section 468 and 471 are not attracted and the offence under Section 420 PPC is bailable and that the petitioner is diabetic and patient of T.B, and his treatment possible.
4. Learned D.P.G, who is assist counsel for the complainant has controvert made by the learned counsel for the petition
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing the documents I find that there is delay of two years in lodging the FIR. There is ho explanation of the delay and there is nothing on record tha} has either initiated criminal proceeding or on the expiry of the target date to . 17.5.2006 fixed between the parties for the completion and execution of sale deed. Case does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Petitioner is in judicial lock up since 8.4.2008 (more than four months He is no more required to the police for investigation. Challan has been submitted at deperation of petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in Jail and following the dictum laid down by the Joinable Supreme Court in case of Fazal Ellahi and another vs. The State (2004 SCM R 235), this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.