The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 374 dated 18.10.2011, registered under Sections 420/468/471 PPC at Police Station City Dunya Pur, District Lodhran.
2. Briefly stated the allegations as contained in the FIR against the petitioner are that on 13.7.2011 the application of the petitioner for leave to defend was allowed subject to submission of surety bond for Rs,25,00,000/- The petitioner submitted the same. Muhammad Munawar was the surety. A forged jamabandi was got prepared and submitted in the Court with surety bond which was found to be fake after verification. The complainant Shaukat Iqbal who was plaintiff in the suit moved the trial Court and on the instructions of learned Additional District Judge Dunya Pur this FIR was ordered to be lodged on the complaint of Shaukat Iqbal.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned, counsel for the petitioner and the learned DPG.
4. The complainant did not turn up today inspite of the fact that he was present in person on the last date of hearing and had sought adjournment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2011 and since then he is in the judicial lock up. He is no more required for any further investigation. His case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The FIR was not lodged on the complaint of the learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the civil suit and before whom the surety bond was submitted. It was rather lodged on the complaint of the plaintiff of the said civil suit. Copies of eight FIRs have been placed on the record which all were lodged by the complainant of this case against various persons. He seems to be a money lender and as per contention of the petitioner he is involved in illegal business of lending money on interest. These arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner get support from the said FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1994 PCr.LJ 993 (Lahore) (M. Siddique Subedar versus The State), PLD 2005 Lahore 386 (Muhammad Suleman and others versus Abdur Razzaque and others, 2011 SCM R 1533 (Muhammad Azeem versus The State and another) in support of his arguments whereas the learned DPG has referred to PLD 1992 Lahore 178 (Muhammad Shafi versus Deputy superintendent of Police (Malik Gul Nawaz), Narowal and 5 others and he also contends that the petitioner has been convicted in a case which was also lodged by the complainant of this case.
6. Admittedly the surety bond was submitted by the co-accused. However there is no denial of the fact that petitioner was the beneficiary thereof. Since the offence if any was committed during the proceedings being conducted by the learned Additional District Judge in a civil suit so the complaint could be filed by the said Court. However in the instant case the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Shaukat Iqbal (plaintiff of the Civil Suit). This legal question is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to whether it could take cognizance on the complaint of Shaukat Iqbal or not. The petitioner is an old man of about 70 years and he is in jail for the last about 2-1/2 months. He is no more required for any further investigation. This case also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.