F.I.Rs. Nos. 357 and 358 have been registered against the petitioners and others for offences under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. On 26-10-1988. Shukar Muhammad and Muhammad Shafi, residents of Azad Kashmir, are owners of land in Kot Kolian. Abdul Aziz co-accused is the Patwari of the village. Javed Akhtar (absconder accused), Banaras and Ashiq petitioners are property dealers at Rawalpindi and Ghulam Hussain co-accused is the lambardar of the village. Zamir alias Bagga, posing as Shukar Muhammad and Muhammad Iqbal petitioner, posing as Muhammad Shat, through their attorney Rab Nawaz petitioner, who was posing as Muhammad Siddique, sold one piece of land for rupees two lacs to Begum Qamar Saeed, a relative of Asaf Fasiuddin Vardag, the complainant of F.I.R. No.358, and the other piece of land was sold for Rs.62,000 to Mst. Hamidah Akhtar, the complainant of the other F.I.R. From the F.I.Rs it is clear that the three property dealers approached the would be vendees; settled the bargains and then on a pretext interposed Rab Nawaz petitioner as attorney and sold the two pieces of land through registered deeds. Ghulam Hussain lambardar has been granted bail by the learned lower Court and from the order it seems that though the merits of the case were touched, yet the main consideration that prevailed with the Court was his old age. Javed Akhtar accused is absconding. The bail before arrest petition of Abdul Aziz Patwari was dismissed and thereafter he has absconded. Zamir co-accused is also absconding. In the above circumstances, contention has been raised that keeping in view the rule of consistency, the case of Banaras and Ashiq petitioners being like that of Ghulam Hussain, they also deserve to be granted bail. It has also been asserted that the offences alleged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of sections 497 and 498, P.P.C. And the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars as a matter of punishment before the actual trial. It is also pointed out that so far the challan has not been submitted in Court. The bail petitions are opposed by the complainant side as well as the State.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it seems that the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and the State is correct that the petitioners have committed, prima facie, an offence under section 467, P.P.C. Which falls within the prohibitory clause. Section 30 of the Penal Code defines `valuable security' and whosoever forges a valuable security is said to comma an offence punishable under section 467, P.P.C. Even if this section is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It will not obviate the actual offence. The petitioners and their co-accused firstly forged the identity cards of the original owners, Shukar Muhammad and Muhammad Shafi, then they forged the power of attorney in favour of Rab Nawaz petitioner on behalf of the actual owners and in consequence thereof sale deeds were also got executed and the money received. In view of these; facts the petitioners do not deserve to be granted bail. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
N.H.Q./B-131/L Petition dismissed.