' Through this application, the petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,72, dated 9-8-1994 under section 420/468/406/467, P.P.C. Registered against him at Police Station Naushehra, District Khushab.
2. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail and was allowed interim pre- arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab but the same was recalled on 17-10-1994 on the ground that he had made a misrepresentation before the Court. The petitioner, later on, was allowed post-arrest bail by the learned Senior Civil Judge Khushab; learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on the application of the complainant under section 497(5) of Cr.P.C. Relying upon case as reported 1994 PCr.LJ 2566.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
4. As alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner committed forgery and prepared a sale-deed in 1946; while the case has been registered against him on 9-8-1994, with a delay of 48 years.
5. In view of the Superior Courts decisions the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been considered a serious element in favour of accused; moreso when such a delay has not been explained reasonably. There is a chain of authorities where bail has been granted on the sole ground of delay in registration of F.I.R. In case Muhammad Tariq v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1846, the delay being of three days in lodging the F.I.R., the Court granted the bail. Similarly in the case Liaquat Ali v. The State KLR 1987 Shariat Case 14, in the case F.I.R. Was lodged with a delay of five days, the learned Judge granted bail on this very ground. Another case reported as Mst. Wazeeran and another v.
The State 1987 MLD 1202, it was observed that delay by more than one month is fatal; the same view has been holding case Muhammad All v. The State 1987 MLD 2216. It was observed in case Muhammad Naeem v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 695, that lodging of F.I.R. After 4 months of the date of occurrence; possibility of false involvement is not ruled out.
6. Secondly admittedly civil litigation between the parties is pending before a competent Court of civil jurisdiction; in case Taj Muhammad v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1833 it was held that where the dispute is of a civil nature and proceedings are already pending in a civil Court in respect of the dispute, the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the civil proceedings and the same view has been held in case Aabid A. Butt v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 22.
7. Further it has been held in case Shabana Chaudhry v. S.H.O. Etc. PLD 1993 Lah. 416 that at a time offences under sections 406 and 420 cannot go together.
8. As the occurrence took place in 1946, none of the witnesses had witnessed the petitioner making the alleged forged document as alleged; neither his signatures nor handwriting has been sent to the expert for comparison nor any result has been received so far. The petitioner is in jail and the offences for which he is charged, do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The challan has been submitted in the trial Court; the petitioner is of about 60 years of age according to police record.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Khushab.
10. Before parting with this case, it may be observed that any remarks/observations made during the course of hearing are of no avail until the same are incorporated in the order and same is signed.