MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and Mian Muhammad Hussain Munna Sheikh, who were accused in an FIR registered for forgery and corruption involving the manipulation of revenue records. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of fabricating revenue documents, such as Roznamcha entries and mutations, in connivance with revenue staff. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage. The ratio of the decision rests on the existence of sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged fraud and forgery, coupled with the observation that the petitioners were allegedly involved in numerous other cases of a similar nature, suggesting they were habitual offenders. The key principle laid down is that where there is prima facie evidence of serious fraud and forgery regarding immovable property, and the accused are allegedly habitual offenders involved in multiple similar cases, the concession of bail should be denied to protect the integrity of the revenue record system.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in the forgery of revenue records?
- Does the alleged involvement of an accused in multiple similar cases of land grabbing disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Can a court direct the trial court to expedite the conclusion of a trial while dismissing a bail application?
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' This single order shall dispose of the instant and connected Crl. Misc. No, 5406-B/2014, whereby Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and Mian Muhammad Hussain Munna Sheikh have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 53 dated 01.7.2013 registered. Under Section 467/468/471, PPC and Section 5(2)47 PCA at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan.
2. , The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused in connivance of the Revenue Staff removed Rapt Serial No, 126 of 1987 and entered into the register a fake Rapt Roznamcha of 1987 and also prepared fake Mutation No, 234 dated .28.6.1986 for the exchange of property of the complainant party. They also removed Rapt No, 119 of 1989 and inserted a fake Rapt Roznamcha dated 13.11.1989 and manipulated their fake Rapt No, 1318 dated 17.4.1990 in favour of Muhammad Hussain petitioner and one Abdul Samad, brother of Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, petitioner and indulged in making fake revenue record in connivance with the Revenue Staff and later on, the said fake proceedings of the Revenue Staff were set aside including fake mutations.
3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that the case against the petitioners is false and concocted one and is outcome of mala fide on the part of the complainant; that Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, petitioner never remained posted as Patwari in the area of Mauza Khasru Abad; that civil litigation is pending between the parties; that the petitioners were arrested in this case on 27.8.2014 and the investigation is complete and they are no more required for further investigation; that the petitioners are previously non-convict and as such they are entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and it is contended that the petitioners in connivance with their co-accused managed the removal of rapts of Roznamcha Waqiati and thereafter managed fictitious mutations regarding the property owned by the complainant party; that the case has been got registered after inquiry by the Revenue Officers; that the petitioners are also involved in 17/18 cases of similar nature, who are habitual land grabbers and as such they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the case law reported as "
(Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs. The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 545)" and "Haji Muhammad Nazir and others vs. The State (2008 SCM R 807 [Supreme Court of Pakistan])".
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. P.G. For the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.
6. The petitioners are the nominated accused of the FIR, who along with their co-accused in connivance with the Revenue Staff, managed the removal of rapts of Roznamcha Waqiati record and included fake copies of rapts therein and thereafter, managed fake entries of fake mutations regarding the land owned by the complainant party. The bogus and forged revenue record was allegedly got prepared by the petitioners in connivance with the Revenue Staff. The offence of fraud and forgery in respect of immovable property is at its peak now-a-days and the petitioners are connected with the commission of such forgery and manipulation of the revenue record. They are also allegedly involved in so many other cases of like nature. Sufficient incriminating material is available on record against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of offence of this case, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail at this early stage.
' In view of above, the petition in, hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed. It is informed that the challan has been submitted before the Court. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the conclusion of trial and dispose of the same within a period of three months positively from the next date of hearing.