' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This petition is directed against an order of the High Court of Sindh - dated 16-10-2008 in Criminal Bail Application No,541 of 2008.
2. The facts appear to be that the petitioner No,1 filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mehar claiming that he was the owner and in possession of a particular piece of land purchased from the father of the complainant through a registered sale deed. Nevertheless, the revenue authorities were not recording entries in his name at the behest of the complainant who was a Tapedar. Accordingly, he prayed for declaration and mandatory injunctions to protect his interests requiring the Mukhtiarkar to perform his duties under the law. Upon receipt of summons the complainant obtained a certificate from the sub-Registrar to the effect that the sale deed appears to be a forged document and after, obtaining order, from the Sessions Judge, Dadu got, an F.I.R.
Registered under sections 467; 468, 471, 472 and 473, P.P.C. Alleging commission of forgery on the part of the petitioner No,1 in connivance with petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners were taken into custody and their applications for bail were dismissed by the Court of Sessions as well as the honourable High Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Laghari, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the civil suit relying upon the sale deed had been filed by the petitioner No,1 and therefore the criminal law could not be set in motion till the question of genuineness or otherwise of the document was determined by the competent Civil Court. Moreover, he urged that even allegations in the F.I.R. Do not attract the provisions of section 467, P.P.C. Which is punishable with ten years imprisonment. Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned Prosecutor-General did not subscribe to the first contention but agreed that section 467 could not be attracted as no valuable security or will was involved.
4. Be that as it may, it is evident that section 467 not being involved the allegations could at best indicates an offence under section 471 read with 466 being not punishable with imprisonment for ten years or above. Honourable High Court completely overlooked the elementary principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and its grant in such offences is the rule and not an exception. The fact that the complainant happened to be a Tapedar and able of using his influence with revenue authorities, required the Court to act greater caution. Learned Prosecutor- General fairly conceded that he was unable to support the impugned order. We have accordingly converted this petition into an appeal and allowed the same directing that each of the petitioners to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the amount of Rs,100,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.