' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this application, Khalid Mehmood petitioner has sought concession of bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,825 of 2007, dated 3-8-2007, registered in respect of offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 506, P.P.C, at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore.
2. This is the second application for pre arrest bail moved by the petitioner. The first one, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,8137-B of 2007, was withdrawn vide order, dated 21-11-2007 which reads as under:-- "Criminal Miscellaneous No,1410-M of 2007.
' Through this application permission for withdrawal of main petition has been sought for. This is allowed. Main petition is dismissed as withdrawn."
3. The prosecution version, as unfurled in the F.I.R., lodged at the instance of Kausar Begum, is that the petitioner sold a plot measuring one Kanal and bearing Khasra No,2701 to the complainant.
However, on receipt of the sale-deed, it transpired that instead of the said Khasra, Khasra No,3984 was entered/inserted therein. The complainant further alleged that on the protest and insistence of the complainant, the petitioner executed a rectification deed ("Tasih Nama"). However, on presenting of the said rectification deed ("Tasih llama"), before the Sub-Registrar, it transpired that the petitioner was not equipped with the valid power of Attorney of the original owner of the said property.
4. In support of this bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, that no fraud or forgery has been committed by the petitioner; that the complainant had purchased the plot bearing Khasra No, 3984, vide sale-deed duly registered on 2-11-2004; that on the basis of the said sale-deed, Mutation No,12807 was duly entered in the name of the complainant; that value of plot bearing Khasra No,2701 spiralled high after the commencement of the project of construction of a ring road because according to the master plan, the said plot is falling on the front of the said road, and because of the said reason, the complainant became avaricious and the afore-mentioned rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") was forged by her in order to grab Khasra No,2701; that on the move of the petitioner, a case bearing F.I.R. No,1099 of 2008 has already been registered at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore, against the complainant party with the allegation of forging of the said rectification deed; that during the first investigation, petitioner was found innocent and a report for the cancellation of the case, at one stage, was also prepared, therefore, his case requires further inquiry falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the bail application by contending that the petitioner is a swindler; that although the petitioner was found innocent during the first investigation but on the move of the complainant, the investigation was transferred and during the second investigation, the petitioner has been found guilty; that though the petitioner did not posses the General Power of Attorney of the owner of the land in question yet he executed a rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") in favour of the complainant after claiming himself to be the General Attorney of Shaheen Jalal, owner of the said land; that the said fraud was unearthed on the presentation of the said rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") before the concerned Sub-Registrar who refused to proceed further with the plea that the petitioner was not in possession of any valid Power of Attorney of the owner of the land and that the considerations for the grant of pre arrest and after arrest bail are different, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary, concession of pre arrest bail.
6. Heard. Record perused. I have gathered that while lodging the F.I.R., no date and time of the occurrence was given by the complainant. I have further gathered that a registered sale-deed, in respect of Khasra No,3984,was executed in favour of the complainant. The said sale-deed was duly registered on 2-11-2004. It is also not denied that on the basis of said sale-deed, Mutation No,12804 was duly sanctioned in favour of the complainant. Prima-facie, it appears that after keeping mum for a period of about two years, the complainant got a rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") prepared on 7-10-2006 which, however, could not be registered. The complainant claims that the said rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") was executed by the petitioner, who, on the other hand, claims that the rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") is a forged document which was never signed by him and that he has already got a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 1099, dated 9-9-2008 at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore. It is not denied that the investigation of the said case is still in progress.
Consequently, it is yet to be determined as to whether the said rectification deed ("Tasih Nama") was executed by the petitioner or the same was prepared and forged by the complainant of this case. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the question of applicability of offence under sections 468/471, P.P.0 also requires further probe. Insofar as the offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is concerned, the same is bailable one. It appears that to make the case non-bailable, the complainant has levelled the allegation of extending threats to her. It is also not denied that during the first investigation, the petitioner was found innocent, the allegations levelled against him were found false and a report for cancellation of the F.I.R. Was prepared but the same could not mature.
It is why the first pre-arrest bail application was withdrawn by the petitioner. During the course of hearing of this application, the Investigating Officer candidly submitted that he does not require physical custody of the petitioner for effecting recovery of any document as, according to him, all the relevant documents are already in his possession.
7. It is true that it is a pre arrest bail application and the considerations are entirely different from that of post arrest bail. However, the law of bail is not a static law and while deciding the pre arrest bail application, the Court cannot be oblivious of the merits of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347) and Muhammad Ismail v. Ghous Bux and another (1990 PCr.LJ 2013).
7-A. Consequently, the application in hand in accepted and the ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order, dated 26-6-2008 is hereby confirmed but, of course, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.