SHARFUDDIN vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' The applicant Sharfuddin son of Bangal Khan is facing trial in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M.

2. Pano Akil in offence under sections 465, 468, 471 and 420, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,9 of 2001, registered at Police Station Pano Akil. The applicant/accused was arrested in pursuance of the said F.I.R. And after due investigation of the case, the case has been sent up in the Court of law.

3. ' The bail plea was moved in the trial Court, which was dismissed on 29-1-2001. Thereafter, the bail application was moved in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sukkur and it was presented before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur in Criminal Bail Application No,184 of 2001. The bail prayer was too dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 10-4-2001.

4. Hence, the present bail application has been moved. The brief facts of the case, as enumerated in the F.I.R., are as under:-- "It is submitted that Mr. Sharfuddin son of Bangal Khan Wagho produced fake certificate of C.T. To the Appointment Committee and Director FGEI (C/D) Dte G.H.Q., Rawalpindi, during the verification of the C.T. Certificate he again submitted false verification documents and forged the Government authorities to undersigned hence FGEI (C/G) Dte, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi has issued their directing to undersigned to register F.I.R. On production of fake C.T. Certificate and doing forgery with Government authorities, so in this regard an F.I.R. Under the section of forgery and fraud be registered against Mr. Sharafuddin son of Bangui Khan Wagho village Chodiyo P.O. Hingoro, Tehsil Pano Akil, Sukkur.

5. (Sd.)

6. Head Master FG, Boys High School Pano Akil Cantt."

7. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the present case has been registered on mala fides and the applicant/accused is involved falsely by the complainant Shah Muhammad Solangi, Head Master, Head Master F.G. Boys High School Pano Akil, who wrote a letter to the S.H.O. Of Police Station Cantt. For registration of the F.I.R. On the ground that the applicant/accused has produced fake C.T. Certificate before the Appointment Committee and Director FGI (C/G) G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and during the verification of that certificate the applicant/accused has fabricated false document and, therefore, on the basis of direction of high- ups the complaint was forwarded to the S.H.O. For registration of the F.I.R. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the punishment in the aforesaid section does not fall within the prohibitory clause, as envisaged under section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further urged that sections 465 and 420, P.P.C. Are bailable whereas only section 468 is not bailable. The case so registered against the applicant/accused will take long time by the trial Court to conclude the same and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation, as the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court having jurisdiction. It is further urged that the 1st Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly presumed that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant/accused at the bail stage. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State, reported in 1995 SCM R 170. The said case entirely depends upon the documentary evidence, which is in possession of the prosecution, hence there is no apprehension of tampering with such evidence by the applicant/accused, therefore, the applicant/accused was granted bail by the apex Court.

8. 'Mr. Iqbal Memon, learned counsel for the State, has not opposed the bail concession to the applicant/accused as it is yet to be proved by the trial Court about the complicity of the documents involved in the case.

9. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and have also perused the record available.

10. ' Keeping in view the dicta laid down in the above case referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused coupled with the no objection extended by the learned counsel for the State as well as the circumstances available on record, the present case requires further enquiry, as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

11. ' Resultantly, the bail is granted to the applicant/accused in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.