FARMAISH ALI and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by two petitioners, Farmaish Ali and Muhammad Arshad, in relation to F.I.R. No. 422 dated 14-8-2003, registered under sections 420, 468, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involve the forgery of an agreement to sell ancestral property to deprive the complainants, who are the sisters of the accused, of their inheritance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the accusations. The Court held that the petition should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that petitioner No. 1 was a direct beneficiary of the alleged forged agreement, which he admitted in his petition, and that he had attempted to implicate a complainant's son in a false case to obstruct the investigation. Furthermore, petitioner No. 2 was identified as a signatory to the forged document. The Court concluded that no mala fide intent was established on the part of the complainants to warrant granting pre-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are a direct beneficiary of an alleged forged agreement to sell?
- Does the attempt to implicate a complainant in a false case to obstruct investigation negate the grounds for pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the accused is specifically named in the F.I.R. and no mala fide is shown by the complainants?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Farmaish Ali son of Chanan Din and Muhammad Arshad son of Samand Khan seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.422 dated 14-8-2003 under sections 420, 468, 506, 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner No.1 is that he along with brother Hidayat Ali forged an agreement to sell in their favour on behalf of complainants, their real sisters to deprive them from share in ancestral property. Petitioner No.2 was the marginal witness ofsaid forged agreement to sell.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
4. The petitioner has admitted in ground "C" of his petition that the sale agreement was executed by the complainant in favour of petitioner No.1 and his brother, co-accused, therefore, argument of learned counsel that petitioner No.1 is not beneficiary has no force. Petitioner No.1 has also attempted to involve son of one of the complainant in a false case for stealing the disputed document in order to avoid its recovery during the investigation. Petitioner No.1 and his brother have deprived their real sisters from inheritance of ancestral property. He has been specifically named in the F.I.R. No mala fide has been pointed out on the part of his real sisters entitling him to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. While petitioner No.2 is signatory of forged document, therefore, the petition is dismissed having no force.