NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

A case under section 420/255/423/ 465/466/472/473/474/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Mankera, District Bhakkar on the report of Ch. Muhammad Akram, Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Mankera on the ground that the petitioner obtained bogus decree by affixing counterfeit, Court seals and stamps and managed to get 34 Kanals of land transferred to his name through the mutation sanctioned in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid decree. In this respect, it was pointed out in the report that the aforesaid Noor Muhammad had never instituted any suit nor in fact any decree was passed in his favour but these were all forged and fictitious proceedings. The F.I.R. was lodged after holding an enquiry at the order of the District Judge after getting permission from the High Court. The F.I.R. also mentioned evidence such as the statement of the Ahlmad and other officials of the Court thereby linking the petitioner with the occurrence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the petitioner is an illiterate person and cannot possibly enter into such tedious exercise all alone to secure a bogus decree though he was in possession of the decree and was its beneficiary but there is nothing on record that in fact he had forged the same by affixing counterfeit or bogus Court seals, etc. It was also submitted that some of the sections under which the case has been registered are not applicable to the facts of the case. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner suffered from renal pain and as such, being a sick person, was entitled to bail as his case would fall within the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the bail on the ground that a Judicial. Officer had lodged the report against the petitioner after the later was fully linked with the occurrence on the basis of enquiry held by another Judicial Officer. It was, also, submitted that the offences under section 472/255 were either punishable with imprisonment for life or 10 years and as such, the case would fall within the prohibitory clause and there being no extenuating circumstance, the petitioner has no case for bail.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. which was prepared on the basis of an enquiry conducted by a Judicial Officer in respect of bogus decree which was found to be in possession of the petitioner and he had used the same to his advantage by getting the mutation in his favour sanctioned in respect of 34 Kanals of land. He being the ultimate beneficiary is prima facie deeply linked with the preparation of the forged decree by affixing the counterfeit and bogus Court seals thereon. As such, the offence under section 255 read with section 472, P.P.C. being punishable upto imprisonment for life, the petitioner would have no case for bail at this stage. The mere fact that he had a renalcolic would not bring his case within the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. because he was properly treated by the Medical Officer of the jail. His alleged sickness is manageable in jail and as such, he cannot take advantage of the proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. which is meant for sick persons who cannot be effectively treated in the jail.

5. In view of my above discussion, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑129/L