Haji Sarfraz son of Haji Wali Muhammad, the petitioner, by filing the instant bail petition seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 775/2009 dated 31.12.2009 registered at Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan for an offence under Sections 474, 467, 468, 471, 420 P.P.C. at the instance of Haji Muhammad Zahoor, complainant, Respondent No, 2.
2. Briefly allegations against the petitioner are that on the submission of warrant of possession by the complainant, Area Girdawar started proceedings on 12.12.2009. During that one Muhammad Hanif produced copy of ad-interim injunction passed by Civil Court, Multan on behalf of present petitioner/accused and others. The record of Civil Court was checked with respect of injunction, but there was no entry of injunction regarding stoppage of legal proceedings. Present petitioner/accused alongwith other co-accused persons with connivance of each other produced fake copy of injunction before the Area Girdawar, hence, this case.
3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Multan, who vide order dated 28.02.2010 dismissed the same. Thereafter, petitioner applied for his post arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide order dated 22.02.2010 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioner is that he produced a forged copy of stay order of Civil Court; the litigation between the parties is pending in the Civil Court with regard to some dispute of possession of the land between them; further submits that stay order was granted on 29.12.2008 and he produced the same before the Patwari for incorporation in Roaznamcha Waqiati which is duly incorporated there; further contends that FIR is got registered after delay of near-about one year; the occurrence is stated to be happened on 29.12.2008 while the FIR is got registered on 31.12.2009, as such, false implication cannot be ruled out; further contends that offences do not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.; complainant delivered the warrant of possession to get the possession of his land falling in his share on 29.12.2009; civil and criminal litigation is pending before the Civil Courts amongst the petitioner and the complainant; nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of the case; the investigation of the case is completed; petitioner is no more required for any probe or recovery; reasonable doubt arose whether petitioner procured the injunctive order or not, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that petitioners named in the FIR; parties name produced in the injunction order produced by the petitioner rather different from the parties name of the injunctive order appended with the bail petition; in the order dated 29.12.2008 produced with the bail petition Province of Punjab is not the party while the petitioner produced the injunctive order in which Province of Punjab is the party, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of 'bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Order dated 29.12.2008 is re-produced in the Roaznamcha of Patwar Circle, Madina, Saddar Multan on 30.12.2008 certified copy of the injunction order dated 29.12.2008 is also appended with the bail petition. Civil and criminal litigation is pending between the parties before the civil and criminal Courts. Offences do not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception in cases not falling under Prohibitory Clause and the sentence for which offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life for 10 years as it has been held in cases Imtiaz Ahmad and another versus the State (PLD 1997 SC 545).
"Even in case where a person is accused of non-bailable offence and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, meaning thereby that the punishment prescribed for the offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years, the grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal is exception."
8. Grant of bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only B change of custody from Government Agencies to the Sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and, wherever he is required to be produced Haji Mohammad Nazir versus The State (2008 SCM R 807). Whether petitioner produced the order dated 29.12.2008 which is appended with the bail petition or any other order, is required further investigation into the guilt of the accused petitioner. The circumstances of the case make the case one of further inquiry into the 'guilt of the accused. If the petitioner is found guilty in the trial they will be convicted and sentenced accordingly. If the petitioner is acquitted there will be no reparation or compensation for the period incarcerated by the accused petitioner in case of refusal of bail. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Tariq Bashir etc. vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
"The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any state of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
9. In the light of above discussion, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the observations made above are of tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.