' Allah Yar petitioner has sought bail in F.I.R. No,653 registered with Police Station Sadar, Chiniot, District Jhang on 11-10-1998 under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with section 409, P.P.C.
2. The facts as they emerge from the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot is that oral Mutation No,436 was entered on 6-2-1996 by Munshi Muhammad Rafiq, Patwari Halqa through which 132 Kaitals, 12 Marlas was intended to be alienated in favour of the vendees for consideration of Rs,1,20,000. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar son of Khan Muhammad and Niaz Ahmad son of Abdul Aziz submitted a joint application that their father Khan Muhammad died on 31-7-1993 and Mst. Muhammad Jan died prior to him while the vendees were tenants of land mutated and they in connivance with the Numberdar and Khewat Dar got a fake and fabricated Mutation No,436, dated 6-2-1996. After due inquiry it came to light that the applicant namely Khan Muhammad and Mst. Muhammad Jan were not alive and did not sign the mutation. Although the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. Yet subsequently, during investigation it was found out that he had identified the vendor at the time of entrance of the mutation.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had gone to the Patwari in connection with his job being an illiterate person of the age of 70 years, the Patwari got his thumb-impression purporting to identify the vendor of the mutation now under challenge. It is contended that no benefit accrued to the petitioner due to this act of fabrication. It is further contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since October, 1998 and he is no more required for investigation purpose. Conversely, learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of the respective learned counsel and have gone through the record. The Investigating Officer present in Court admits that the age of the petitioner is 60/65 years. Whether the petitioner identified the vendor who were admittedly dead at the time when the mutation was entered, knowingly and for monetary benefit is yet to be seen when the evidence comes on record during the trial. The Investigating Officer admits that the main culprit i,e, Patwari has not yet been arrested. This being the position, the petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry. Resultantly accepting his application I enlarge him on bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Duty Magistrate.