' The allegation against Muhammad Akhtar is that he was Patwari and he tampered with the Revenue Record in connivance with Muhammad Nawaz who is also petitioner in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners were arrested on 24-6-2000. Five months have been passed and nothing incriminating has been recovered from them. He submits that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate-General Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that though, offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. But they are named in the F.I.R. And they both have caused monetary damages to one Muhammad Amir vendee in this case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case petitioners were arrested on 24-6-2000 and since then they are behind the bar. Challan has already been submitted in the Court and the petitioners are no more required by the police. Offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and allow bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.