' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Wali Muhammad S.-I. Seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,142 of 2011 dated 28-7-2011 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station Railway Police, Lahore.
2. Wali Muhammad S.-I. (petitioner) was the Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. No,127 of 2010 dated 24-5-2010 under section 506, 337-H(2), 427, 452, 148, 149 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Railway Police, Lahore and he recommended the case for cancellation as he reached the conclusion that the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. Was false. After fulfilment of various formalities, the investigation file bearing the aforesaid opinion of the I.O. (petitioner) was supposed to be presented before the learned Magistrate concerned under section 173, Cr.P.C. For appropriate orders. It transpired at a later stage that order regarding cancellation of the case by the learned Magistrate was forged one. The learned Magistrate having learnt the said fact got lodged F.I.R.
No,142 of 2011 dated 28-7-2011 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Railway Police, Lahore. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 29-7-2011, hence, the instant petition.
3. It is contended by his learned counsel that accused-petitioner has been falsely roped in this case under a conspiracy and he is not even. Remotely linked with the allegation of forgery; Nadeem Arif 501/HC had been handed down the investigation record for presentation before the learned Area Magistrate on 28-7-2011 by Altaf Hussain 346/MHC; the allegation of forgery of the order in question can only be explained by Altaf Hussain 346/HC or Nadeem Arif 501/HC; the petitioner was arrested on 29-7-2011 and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation; the offence under sections 468, 471 are non-cognizable, whereas, section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has opposed the bail petition with the contention that the petitioner being Investigating Officer was directly responsible for offence of forgery of the order of learned Magistrate; accused Nadeem Arif HC and Altaf Hussain Moharrer are equally responsible for the charge, faced by the petitioner.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that Wali Muhammad S.-I. (petitioner) was the Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. No,127 of 2010 supra, the investigation whereof, he concluded in terms that the charge against the accused was false, they were innocent and that the case was liable to be cancelled. He recorded case Diary No,7 dated 18- 6-2010, wherein he recorded his disagreement with the contention of the complainant and opined about the innocence of the accused. The inspector S.H.O. Verified the opinion of the Investigating Officer (petitioner) vide case Diary No,8 dated 57-2010 and okayed the opinion of the Investigating Officer for cancellation of the case. The report prepared by the S.H.O. Under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Dated 5-7-2010 after formal proceedings by the Deputy Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Lahore Division and SP, Pakistan Railway, Lahore was forwarded on 9-7-2010 by the Prosecutor Inspector Pakistan Railways Police, Division, Lahore for presentation before the "Court" for appropriate orders. Till this stage every thing was in order. There is a big gap thereafter and it cannot be understood as to when and by whom the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was carried for placement before the Magistrate concerned and who fabricated a forged order of the Magistrate. Wali Muhammad S.-I. Being the Investigating Officer can be understood to possess the knowledge as to the aforesaid fact, but, who could be burdened with the liability of forgery of the aforesaid order, is a circumstance which, is not answered by the data collected by the Investigating Officer of case. F.I.R. No,142 of 2011 supra. The grilling of Nadeem Tariq 501/HC and Altaf 346/MHC may lead to unfurling the mystery hovering over the prosecution case. It is strange that both of them have not been interrogated so far by the police which must have been done by now so as to bridge-up the gap in the prosecution case. The language of the forged order is interesting as it does not show that the case itself had been filed or that the request of the police for cancellation of the case stood filed. This order does not bear any date. It appears from the record that the learned Area Magistrate had undone the opinion of the Investigating Officer and passed an order for submission of challan against the accused.. The petitioner is behind the bars since 29- 7-2011 and no more required for the purpose of further investigation. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I conclude, that petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. The instant petition, therefore, is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.