' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant had no right to lodge the instant case against the petitioner; that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. He has relied upon Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. Further submits that this is bail after arrest and this Court had Cancelled the bail before arrest of the petitioner which.Was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Adds that Pakistan Bar Council had suspended the order of the Punjab Bar Counsel whereby the petitioner was declared to be not an Advocate and for the registration of the case against the petitioner; that said matter is pending before Pakistan Bar Council which is highest forum of the lawyers; that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to bail.
2. On the other hand learned D.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that- petitioner had been working as a lawyer at Faisalabad although he was not a lawyer arid he had produced bogus result card before Punjab Bar Council and got the licence, thereafter when it was proved through documentary evidence instant case was registered against the petitioner. Further submits that any body can lodge the F.I.R. Against a person if an offence is made out against him.
Adds that challan has been submitted before the Court; charge has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence; that there are only five prosecution witnesses and trial can .Be concluded within a month and that he is not entitled to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I had passed a detailed ordex in Criminal Miscellaneous No,13124/CB of 2009 titled as Abdul Hafeez Bawa v. Muhammad Saleem Kamboh on 22-10-2009. I had dealt with all the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties at that time.
It is correct that this is a bail after arrest and if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception but this is a case in which the petitioner, who was not entitled to get the licence, he produced a bogus result card before Punjab Bar Council who after inquiry and summoning of record from Punjab University, was proved to be bogus one. He had been looting the innocent persons by posing himself to be an Advocate. Such like persons cannot let loose on the society to repeat the offence. Till today petitioner had not produced his degree issued by Punjab University to prove that he had passed examination of LL.B and he was an Advocate. This is an exceptional case and an exception can be used in this case. Reliance is placed upon Shameel Ahmad v. The State 2009 SCM R 174 wherein it was held as under:--- "S.497---Bail in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.---Principles-- -Grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not a rule of universal application---Each case has to be seen through its own facts and circumstances---Grant of bail no doubt, is a discretion granted to a Court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse."
' Reliance is also placed upon Ijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Aslam and others 2009 PCr.LJ 1140 wherein it was held as under:--- "S.497-Bail-Cases not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Practice and procedure---Grant of bail to an accused in every case not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. Is not a rule of universal application and each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances--- Court cannot exercise such discretion in` an arbitrary, fanciful or perverse manner."
' Reliance is also placed upon "Izat Khan and 2 others v. The State 2001 P.Cr.L.J.291 wherein it was held as follow:--- S.497---Bail---Refusal of bail in cases not falling within the Prohibitory Clause---Principle---Court may decline bail to accused in offences even not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., if there exist recognized exceptional circumstances."
4. Moreover, anybody can lodge the F.I.R. If a cognizable offence is made out. In this case present petitioner had given a legal notice to the complainant of the F.I.R. And on that short ground the complainant was entitled to lodge the instant F.I.R. Against the petitioner. Photo copy of another F.I.R. Has been produced by learned counsel for the complainant which was registered against the petitioner for stealing of electricity. Even challan has been submitted in, the Court, charge has been framed IC and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order and other material available on record, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. This petition stands dismissed.
6. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.