NIAZ Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Mohy‑ud‑Din, complainant herein, reported to Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore on 15‑8‑1987, vide F.I.R. No. 250/87 that he owned about one hundred Kanals of land in village Qila Dedar Singh Tehsil, District Gujranwala, which is cultivated by Mushtaq Ali and Saif Ali as his tenants. The said tenants in conspiracy with their brother Ilyas and his brother‑in‑law Niaz, petitioner herein, prepared a forged power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant in favour of Niaz Ali and on the basis of the same, Niaz Ali transferred complainant's land in favour of his own son Abbas Ali and a relative Muhammad Rafiq. A case was registered on 15‑8‑1987 under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. and investigated.
2. During the investigation the petitioner failed to produce the original power of attorney on the basis of which he had transferred complainant's land to Abbas Ali and Muhammad Rafiq and instead produced a photostat copy of the so‑called power of attorney. According to police investigation, the petitioner has been found guilty of committing offences of forgery and cheating. He was arrested in August 1987. Petitioner's bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this application.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record produced by Muhammad Naseem, Inspector Police, in Court.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in jail for about six months without trial; that the evidence proposed to be adduced against the petitioner is almost of documentary nature and that the complainant has filed a suit for cancellation of power of attorney which is sub judice and it is yet to be determined whether the power of attorney on the basis of which Niaz petitioner had transferred complainant's land was genuine or a forged one; that there is no apprehension that the petitioner would suborn the witnesses and that the offences with which the petitioner is charged are not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C . hence he has good case for the grant of bail. Replying, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. The original power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which he had transferred the complainant's land to his relatives is not forthcoming. It is also admitted that the complainant has filed a suit for the cancellation of the said power of attorney which is sub judice, and mostly the evidence proposed to be examined against the petitioner is of documentary nature. The investigation is complete and the challan is ready to be put in Court soon. In the circumstances there is no apprehension that the petitioner, if released on bail, shall suborn the witnesses. The petitioner is in jail for about six months. He is charged for committing the offences which are not punishable with ten years' imprisonment or above and are not covered under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, I would allow this petition and direct that he be released subject to his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
M.Y.H./N‑113/L Bail granted.