' A case under section 218/409/420/ 468/471/109, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No,70 of 1998, dated 23-11-1998 at Police Station A.C.E. Lahore Region, Lahore at the report of Muhammad Boota, Advocate in which he contended that he was owner of land situated in Khata No,1822 in Mauza Niaz Baig, Lahore. The aforesaid land was acquired for Johar Town by the L.D.A. He contacted the consolidation staff to obtain 'Fard Malkiat' of his land aforesaid, whereupon, he was told that his National Identity Card was forged by a gang operating in collusion with the L.D.A. Staff. His forged power of attorney was prepared and on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney. N.O.C. Was obtained. The petitioner alongwith other deprived the complainant of his valuable land on the basis of the forged documents and thereby got Plots Nos.601/L and 602/L which were allotted to him but later on stood transferred through the fraudulent transaction to Elahi Bakhsh and Almas Begum respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case; that he never acted in collusion with the L.D.A. Officials nor did be join hands with other co-accused. However, it was conceded that the petitioner was one of the identifier of the attorney Abdul Aziz Butt when the general power of attorney was executed in his favour allegedly by Muhammad Boota. It is also contended that the property in question was first transferred in the name of Muhammad Mustaqeem through an agreement and, thereafter, it was alienated to Riaz through an agreement who allegedly transferred the same onward to Aziz Butt through another agreement in whose favour the power of attorney was forged and the land was then transferred to Mirza Riaz and onward to the petitioner. It was, therefore, contained that since the plots in question were never transferred in the name of the petitioner nor he was the beneficiary under the transaction, therefore, he was not involved in any alleged forgery of the documents nor he had misappropriated any property belonging to the complainant and as such, the provisions of section 409/420 or 486, P.P.C., were not attracted to him nor he was involved in any official misconduct being a man from public. The mere fact that his name was mentioned in the alleged forged power of attorney as identifier would not be sufficient to involve him in this case which was a case of further enquiry as far as the petitioner is concerned. Reliance was placed on 1987 PCr.LJ 447 (Lahore) Mazhar Muhammad v. The State, 1995 M LD 766 Irshad Ahmad Khan v. State and 1998 PCr.LJ 2169 Razaq Ahmad and others v. The State to show that the petitioner was no more required for the investigation and that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the bail to him be granted as a matter of rule.
3. The bail application was opposed by the learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner was operating with a 'Qabza Group' which consisted of his co-accused and, thereafter, through forged documents deprived the complainant of his land. In this regard, it was contended that the power of attorney was never executed by the complainant but the same was forged in favour of Abdul Aziz and still there was nothing on record to show that Muhammad Mustaqeem had any authority from the complainant to further transfer the land to Shumail. Muneer i,e,, the petitioner who onward alienated the land to Riaz his co-accused who was also his close relative. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner acted fraudulently to deprive the complainant of his land with the help of his co-accused through the surreptitious manner and with great dexterity and criminal skill. The power of attorney having been denied by the complainant and a purported blank sale-deed duly signed by the complainant being also denied, it was submitted that the petitioner having acted fraudulently in preparing the forged documents to deprive the complainant of his property is not entitled to bail at this stage particularly when the other co-accused are still at large.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the case was registered on 23-11-1998 but the investigation is not complete nor a report, interim or final, as envisaged by section 173, Cr.P.C., has been sent to the Court. However, taking into consideration the foregoing facts, it appears that the petitioner prima facie played an active role in the preparation of the forged documents with the help of his co-accused and also ultimately got a sale-deed executed in his favour and further transferred the same to one of his relative and co-accused namely Riaz Ahmad.
As such, it cannot be said at random that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the fishy transaction. In such a situation, the petitioner has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed with the observation that the Investigating Officer shall comply with the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C., and shall submit, interim or final, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., to the Court concerned within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may re-agitate the bail matter before the Trial Court, irrespective of the dismissal of petition vide this order.