MST. LATIFAN BIBI Versus RIAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN

ORDER

This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to Riaz Muhammad Khan, Alif Khan and Abdul Hameed respondents in a case under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Lower Mall, Lahore vide F.I.R. No. 246/87, dated 9‑8‑1987, granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 5‑12‑1987.

2. The allegations against the respondents are that they prepared a false sale‑deed purporting to have been executed by Jafar Khan in favour of Abdul Hameed respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 had allegedly attested false sale‑deed whereas Alif Khan respondent No.2 had identified Jafar Khan, vendor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail has been granted to the respondents in violation of the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts, inasmuch as, the case was not on account of mala fides on the part of the police and the complainant and that since Jafar Khan had not executed sale‑deed, therefore, Abdul Hameed respondent No.3, the beneficiary of the sale‑deed and Riaz Muhammad Khan the attesting witnesses of the sale‑deed and Alif Khan, who had identified Jafar Khan before the Local Commissioner have committed offences punishable under section 420/408/471, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find (as stated by the Investigating Officer) that the police has not been able to locate the person whose thumb‑impression was found on the sale‑deed; that offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C are bailable; that the co‑accused Abdul Rashid has already been released on post arrest bail that the State or the complainant has not filed any application for the cancellation of bail granted to him and that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by sending the respondents to jail and then allowing them post arrest bail after few days. It is well‑settled that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong grounds would be required for interfering with tae same, which I do not see in the case in hand.

For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.

S.G.D./L.34/L Petition dismissed.