Lahore High Court

Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J

Noor Muhammad VS The State

Crl. Misc. No. 6749/B of 1998
23/12/1998
Reported As [K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 368]

ORDER
RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.- A case under Sections 420/255/423/465/466/472/473/474/34
PPC was registered against the petitioner and others at P.S. Mankera, District Bhakkar on the report
of Ch. Muhammad Akram. Civil Judge/MS-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 infact 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 Ahmad 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 infact 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 bv 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 Sections 255 read
with Section 472 PPC being punishable upto imprisonment for life, the petitioner would have no case
for bail at this state. 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.