' Sheikh Muhammad Ishfaque seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,492 of 1999 with Police Station "A" Division, Kasur under sections 420/467/468/471 and 506, P.P.C. On 6-10-1999.
2. Allegation contained in the First Information Report authored by Muhammad Shehzad is that Sh.
Muhammad Tahir and his wife were owner of the plot in question, therefore, a power of attorney was executed in favour of Muhammad Waseem and it was Waseem who entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the property and after having received valuable consideration it was found that the property sold to them was earlier sold to many other people and that Tahir and his wife were the owners of Khasra No,7431 and not 7430 which was agreed to be alienated. As far as petitioner is concerned allegation against him is that he stood surety that if there is any charge on the property or the sale becomes defective he would be responsible for indemnifying the buyers.
3. Post-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur on 9th of June, 2000.
4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is neither a signatory to the document executed between the attorney and the first informant nor he has signed the same as a marginal witness. It was further contended that no written document was given by the petitioner suggesting him to be the surety, therefore, discretion should be exercised in his favour. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has stated that an affidavit is on the file which shows that the petitioner executed the same and its contents when read furnishes security to the buyers for being indemnified in case defect is proved in the sale of property. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has stated that no such document has been signed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for State after perusal of the record i.e, one of the Ziminies has stated that there is denial of the execution of the said document by the petitioner. However, in the personal remand the police did not get his admitted signatures and sent the same alongwith the disputed signatures to the Expert for comparison.
5. Having considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am impressed with the fact that simple high sounding allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Would not connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence unless he has signed a document indemnifying the buyers from any defect which occurs subsequently. To the contrary there is no evidence on the record as alleged, to suggest commission of offence on the part of the petitioner.
Prima facie petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry and probe. While accepting his bail application I release him on bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge.