' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 282/2009, dated 15-4-2009, for offence under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a property dealer sold a plot to the complainant with the connivance of one Aziz-ur-Rehman the owner thereof which subsequently was found not to be solely owned by the said Aziz-ur-Rehman as a consequence whereof the afore mentioned F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. According to the learned counsel there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Of two years that the petitioner had not received any money from the complainant; that the petitioner is a broker who had only received his commission from the complainant; that there is no allegation of preparation of any forged document by the petitioner and that at this stage he is not required by the police for any purpose.
4. The petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel of the complainant and have gone through the record.
6. The petitioner is a property dealer who is alleged to have sold a plot purportedly owned exclusively by Aziz-ur-Rehman for a consideration of Rs,8,00,000 which on verification by the complainant was not found to be exclusively owned by the said person. As has been argued by the learned counsel, the petitioner is a property dealer and being so is not the direct beneficiary of the said transaction. In any case; according to the record and as affirmed by the learned counsel for the For what has been stated above, this is a fit case for the grant of complainant, over a period of time the petitioner has paid Rs,3,90,000 to the complainant. Since all the evidence is in the form of documents which has already been taken into possession by the police, the petitioner is not required by the police for any further investigation. Even otherwise, the offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Of almost two years has also not been explained by the complainant.
' For what has been stated above, this is a fit case for the grant of post-arrest bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trail Court.