' The petitioner who is a Lambardar has been reported against vide F. I. R. No, 582 dated 22-9-1986, Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi under section 420/468/471/196, P. P. C. For having presented before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi a forged jamabandi in order to show his property status to stand surety for a foreigner who was involved in a narcotics smuggling case.
2. The petitioner applied for bail before a learned Additional Sessions Judge who has refused it after taking note of the submissions of the prosecution that the petitioner was a well-known tout and had given surety bonds in a large number of cases.
3. Even before me, it has not been denied that the petitioner stood surety, as alleged by the prosecution, for the foreigner. It is also not denied that it is the petitioner who furnished the surety on the basis of copy of the jamabandi in dispute. According to the statement of Patwari recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the document was forged though purported to have been prepared and issued by him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the offences under sections 468 and 471, P. P.
C. Are not bailable while the rest are bailable. He submits that grant of bail to the petitioner in such like case was the rule and withholding it an exception. I think this case deserves to be an exception to the general rule. I cannot help observing that lately a tendency to furnish surety for the accused before criminal Courts on the basis of forged documents has shown an alarming increase. The judicial history of this sub-continent will bear out that whenever commission of particular type of crime had assumed alarming proportions, the judiciary took judicial notice of ,The events and lent its helping hand to curb that evil through judicious exe' cite of discretion. A contrary course is likely to hay disastrous consequences for the society and the State.
5. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. However, for the benefit of the petitioner, it is observed A that his trial should commence within a period of three months.