MUKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mukhtar Hussain, who was charged under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of forging reinstatement orders for a dismissed government employee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence collected and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the petitioner should be granted bail. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to send the disputed documents to a handwriting expert for comparison, creating significant doubt regarding the allegations. Furthermore, the Court noted a grave conflict between the recovery memo and the facts narrated in the First Information Report. Emphasizing that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that his continued detention would serve no useful purpose, the Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by evidentiary discrepancies and the investigation is complete, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail, particularly when the alleged offences do not carry a life imprisonment or death penalty.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to obtain a handwriting expert's report on disputed documents constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is bail appropriate when there is a significant conflict between the recovery memo and the facts stated in the First Information Report?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further probe?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Mukhtar Hussain petitioner by filing the instant petition seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime Report No,246, dated 6-7-2003, under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Civil line, Lahore at the behest of Muhammad Amin, Director (Admn.), Director-General of Social Welfare Women Development Bait-ul-Maal Punjab, Lahore.
2. Allegations brought against the petitioner in a nutshell are that he prepared forged reinstatement orders of Muhammad Amir, Ex-Naib Qasid, Bait-ul-Maal, Hafizabad, who was dismissed from service and appeal filed by him was pending adjudication before the Director (Admn.), Social Welfare Women Development Bait-ul-Maal, Lahore. The petitioner allegedly established contact with diary clerk and pestered him to despatch the reinstatement orders to the concerned forums, who gave him a flat refusal. His office bag was searched by the complainant.
His own National Identity Card, office stamp, stamp pad, service book of Muhammad Amir and fifteen pages of forged orders were recovered. Accordingly, he was handed over to the police alongwith the recovered articles and documents.
3. Earlier post-arrest bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Punjab, Lahore through his order, dated 2-8-2003. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No,4628/B of 2003, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17-9-2003. Hence, this application.
4. Learned counsel for the 'petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months and that challan was submitted before the trial Court on 16-7-2003, but charge has not been framed so far. Adds that he is an educated person and his further detention in jail is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution; that there was no reliable evidence linking him with the crime of forgery and that allegations against him call for further probe.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that recoveries have already been effected and offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are punishable with seven years in maximum. He opposes grant of bail to him.
6. I have consciously heard and deeply considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. Samples of handwriting or signatures of the petitioner were never sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison purpose. It was imperative upon the prosecution to .Have got the disputed document compared with his handwriting/signatures sample to prove allegations against the petitioner. Contents of recovery memo. Have been read out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which if compared and contrasted with the facts and circumstances narrated in the F.I.R.
Would show that there is grave conflict between the two. It makes the affairs extremely doubtful. As the petitioner is no -longer required for further investigation and no further offence is to be discovered from him, so his further detention in jail is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the cause of prosecution. Offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner can entail maximum punishment of seven years if the prosecution become successful in proving its case to the hilt. There is no likelihood of his jumping the bail in any manner.
7. For all these reasons, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. He is accordingly directed to be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.