' SH. NAJAM UL HASSAN, J.--- Through this petition, Muhammad Rafiq petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 175 dated 4-3-2011 registered under sections 467/468/471/472, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat on the statement of Rustam Aurangzeb, Asstt. Manager of Nau Bahar Bottaling Company, Gujranwala. Later on sections 420 and 408 P.P.C. Were also added in the F.I.R.
2. In the F.I.R. It was alleged that one Munir was Manager of the store and by preparing forged photostat copies of the receipts he has been receiving huge quantity of material from the store and as such he has taken away material valuing Rs.1,72,85,540. As such the case was registered against him and his brother, namely, Bashir. Later on during investigation the complainant made supplementary statement on 20-3-2011 while relying on statements of Allah Ditta and Ibrahim implicating the petitioner on the ground that he was frequent visitor of the store and as he was father-in-law of the principal accused Munir so he is also involved in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main accused who is son-in-law of the petitioner is still at large and just to pressurize him, name of the petitioner has been added. It is also contended that there is no evidence available against the petitioner in respect of alleged offence in the whole prosecution case and that statements of Allah Ditta and Ibrahim do not disclose that the petitioner was involved in forging or using the said documents. Further states that there is nothing on record to indicate that it was the petitioner who took away bottles or other material.
Lastly learned counsel contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and is no more required for further investigation.
4. On the other hand learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant states that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has been involved with mala fide intention; that no enmity of the complainant or the witnesses has been brought on record; that in the investigation it transpired that the petitioner purchased certain properties in his name and in the name of his son-in-law beyond his means which circumstance goes against the petitioner; that Rs.1,00,000 out of the misappropriated amount has been recovered from the petitioner and that the said son-in-law i.e. The main accused is still at large, so the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation it transpired that the petitioner was frequent visitor of the Manager of the Store who was his son-in-law. Although one lac rupees have been recovered from the petitioner, yet no other A incriminating material has been recovered from him. There is nothing on record to Indicate that the petitioner was involved in forging the alleged documents or that he has taken away bottles or other material from the store. Keeping in view relationship of the petitioner with the main accused and also considering that the main accused is still at large false involvement of the petitioner in this case just to pressurize the main accused, cannot be ruled out and his involvement in the commission of crime would be determined after recording of trial. At this stage I find that the petitioner has made out a case for bail. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.4,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.