' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, Shaukat Ali petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,12, dated 14-1-2011, offence under sections 420.
468, 471, 506, P.P.C., lodged at Police Station Ganjmandi, Rawalpindi.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that he and his forefathers by way of preparing bogus documents of ownership of the plot owned by the complainant had committed fraud.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, who has been involved in this case by the complainant for satisfying ulterior motives just to humiliate the petitioner and cause unjustified harassm ent. It is argued that no date and time of occurrence has been mentioned. Learned counsel vehemently contends that not only it is a case in which there is no direct evidence against the petitioner rather it is a case of no evidence at all and even provisions of sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., are not attracted to the facts of the case. Learned counsel further argues that even otherwise if the prosecution version is presumed to be true, evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of documents, which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution and there is no apprehension. Of his tampering with the same.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. Has opposed this bail petition It is argued that that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role and there is sufficient incriminating evidence against him connecting him with the commission of offence; therefore, he does not deserve the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record.
Available on file.
6. Although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., however. Admittedly' no date and time of occurrence has been mentioned in the same. When confronted that how the provisions of sections 420, 468, 471, 506, P.P.C., are attracted to the facts of the case to the extent of petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that provisions of sections 420, 468 and 506. P.P.C., are not made out against the petitioner, however, ingredients of section 467, P.P.C., are attracted. I am constraint to observe that from the material available on record, at present, even provisions of section 467. P.P.C., are also not made out. It is admitted fact that the documents in question pertain to the year, 1979 and as such prosecution lodged the case after 32 years, which itself is sufficient to grant the relief prayed for.
7. I also find much weight in the contention of learned counsel that evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of documents which is in the exclusive B possession of the prosecution/investigating agency and if the petitioner is admitted to bail there is no apprehension of his tampering with the prosecution evidence. Guidance in this behalf is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCM R 170).
8 As far as the element of maid fide is concerned. Admittedly in the instant case not only the petitioner rather his deceased forefathers have been roped and the complainant astonishingly kept mum during their lifetime. This fact alone when juxtaposed with other factors, which can easily be smelled out by just bare reading of the material available on record, is sufficient to suggest that very registration of the instant case may be outcome of mala fides. Even otherwise liberty of a person is most precious right of any sub subject/ citizen as guaranteed under the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed on the basis of bald allegations.
'
9. In this backdrop, by sending the petitioner behind the bars, no useful purpose would-be served.
Hence, I am persuaded to accept this petition as a consequence whereof ad, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 26-4-2011 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
Pre-arrest .