1. ' The applicant is facing trial in a case under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South. The F.I.R. Of this case was registered at Police Station City Courts, Karachi, South on 20-6-2001.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mehar Chughtai lodged the F.I.R. Stating therein that their mother owned House No,A-308/J, North Nazimabad, Karachi. After her death they inherited the said house. They asked their maternal-uncle to help them to get the property mutated in their names. He took Rs,2,50,000 from them and the relevant original documents. During this deal he obtained their signatures and thumb-impressions on some written as well as blank papers. It is stated that he was asked to account for this correspondence and the expenditure incurred thereupon. The applicant thereafter filed suit in the High Court on the basis of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the complainant party in favour of present applicant. He further averred in the suit that the house in question was sold to him for Rs,16,00,000 and he paid Rs,12,50,000 as earnest money to the complainant. The complainant alleged in F.I.R.
3. That the sale agreement filed in the suit is forged and they had not entered into such agreement with the applicant. The sale agreement submitted in the High Court was attested by IXth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, East and on verification, they came to know that it was not in fact attested by the said Magistrate.
4. ' The police after registration of F.I.R. Arrested the present applicant on 23-6-2001. The challan has been submitted in the Court and the case is pending trial in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South.
5. ' It is contended by the -learned counsel for the applicant that ingredients of section 467,' P.P.C.
6. Have not been attracted in the case. The interim challan was submitted by the police wherein section 467, P.P.C. Was deleted but subsequently the complainant party managed to include section 467, P.P.C. In the second challan. The Civil Suit bearing No,61 of 2001 is pending in this Court between the parties. The F.I.R. Is delayed by about 4 years. The civil suit was filed by the present applicant in January,2001, but in spite it, the F.I.R. Was lodged on 20-6-2001. It is pleaded that the alleged false signature of Magistrate was not obtained by the applicant but it was got managed, by the complainant party. The offence if any, it would fall under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
7. Which are not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The father of the present applicant is also shown one of the accused in the F.I.R., but he has been let off by the police. The property is in possession of the complainant party.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan Abbasi, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The offence with which the applicant is charged is covered by the prohibitory clause. The documents have been forged by the applicant in order to deprive the complainant party of their house, which is worth Rs,30,00,000, therefore, the accused is not entitled for bail. The reliance is placed upon the case of Tabbasam Ahmed Qureshi v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 105 and the case of her Dil Khoso v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1748.
9. ' Mr. Javed Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
10. The perusal of the record shows that the parties are closely related to each other. The complainant party have not denied their signatures on the disputed agreement but their plea is that the same were obtained by fraud. They have filed written statement in the suit to that effect. The only dispute is for the attestation of the agreement. The complainant party has grievance that the applicant/accused put false signature of Magistrate, and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. The plea of defence is that the said agreement was got attested by the complainant party. This fact is yet to be established at the time of trial by the complainant party. The police papers reveal that the ingredient of section 467, P.P.C. Have not been attracted in the instant case. The remaining sections are not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested on 23-6-2001 and since then he is in custody. The possession of the disputed property is already with the complainant party. The applicant has filed civil suit, which is pending decision in this Court. The F.I.R. Is delayed by about 4 years. The complainant did not even lodge the F.I.R. After January, 2001, as the said suit was filed against the complainant party in January, 2001. The Advocate appeared for defendants and filed his power on their behalf on 12-2-2001. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for complainant has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the case of Sher Dil Khoso, the, accused were the Bank Officers who connived with each other and allowed to encash the forged cheque.
11. ' Similarly, the case of Tabbasum Ahmed is also on different footing. The accused in that case being the employee embezzled and misappropriated the amount of Rs,10,000,000 (Rupees ten million only) of his employer. The case of present applicant is altogether distinguished.
12. In such a situation, at present there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant/accused has committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. His case, therefore, requires further inquiry.
13. ' The applicant was granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by a short order, dated 8-9-2001. These are the detailed reasons.