Petitioner Syed Hamid Shah seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 161/2009 dated 19.04.2009, under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC, P.S. Basti Malook, District Multan.
2. It is inter alia contended that there is an unexplained delay of one year and ten months in lodging the FIR; Provisions of Sections 420 and 471 PPC are bailable, whereas, punishment prescribed for offence under Section 468 PPC is seven years, which from the bare perusal of FIR is not attracted; he is not beneficiary of forged documents rather is only marginal witness; the alleged mutation has already been reviewed and no loss has been caused to the complainant; the complainant is a real nephew of the petitioner and has got registered the present case due to family dispute; the petitioner is chronic patient of diabetes and his blood pressure as per medical report due to hyper tension is touching the dangerous upper medical level which may be harmful for his life and as per medical report, facility of treatment is not available in the Jail Hospital; in all cases registered against the petitioner, he was allowed pre-arrest bails. In support of his contentions places reliance upon PLD 1995 SC 34 "Tariq Bashir and others Vs. The State", 2007 P.Cr.LJ 112, 2006 SCM R 1225 & 2000 SCMR 1007. Adds that bail was granted even if involved in more than one case, places reliance upon 1999 PCr.LJ 271, 1997.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecution General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the beneficiary and he received a sum of Rs,32,00,000/- (rupees thirty two lacs) vide Iqrar Nama which is on the police file and that he has committed fraud with his real sister.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has not only committed fraud with his real sister, in addition thereto, committed fraud with Khawaja Abdur Rauf who has purchased this land from the petitioner, as he produced some fake woman by posing that she was his real sister/owner. The petitioner is named in the FIR with attribution of specific role. He has been found guilty during the course of investigation.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is named in the FIR and has been found guilty during investigation. He has committed fraud with, his real sister which makes the case heinous in nature. Such like persons do not deserve any leniency. Sufficient incriminating material is available against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence. This petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.