The petitioner, through this petition seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,49 dated 01.02.2010, under Sections 467/468/471/420 PPC registered at Police Station, Harrapa District Sahiwal.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused prepared a forged agreement to sell dated 22.07.1988.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been roped in this case; that during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested and nothing was recovered from him; that actually Respondent No, 2/complainant of her own free will executed agreement to sell in favour of her brother Ahmad son of Lal; that the alleged occurrence as stated by the complainant has taken place on 22.07.1998 whereas the present FIR was got registered on 1.2.2010 with the delay of almost 12 years which casts a serious doubt; that the petitioner is neither beneficiary of the agreement to sell nor he has any concern whatsoever with the agreement to sell; that civil litigation is also pending between the parties wherein the veracity of the document has been assailed; that co-accused whose role is graver than the petitioner has already been allowed bail by this Court; therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on principle of consistency.
3. On the other hand, learned DPG has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of post arrest bail by submitting that it is apparent from the FIR that the offence has been committed; that the document is anti dated agreement to sell, which is a forged and fictitious document and that role attributed to the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused prepared forged document and that his co-accused has already destroyed the document, hence the petitioner is not entitle to the concession of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the document in question. The beneficiary of document is one Ahmad son of Lal who has died and the suit filed for specific performance of the contract has already been dismissed. Therefore, in fact the property has not been transferred and it is an attempt to commit the offence. Since the interest of the complainant is already secured.
Co-accused of the petitioner, whose role is graver than the petitioner, has already been allowed bail by this Court; therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on principle of consistency.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to, the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.