FATEH SHER vs TE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 93 dated 18-4-2004, registered at Police Station Cantt, Sargodha, concerning allegations of forgery and cheating under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, dismissed his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the investigation conducted by the police. Upon review, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer had concluded, after a thorough probe, that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged offence and had recorded a specific finding of innocence. Consequently, the State did not oppose the bail application. The Court held that, given the Investigating Officer's finding, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as envisaged by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail was confirmed.
- Does a finding of innocence by the Investigating Officer entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- When does a case qualify as one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Fateh Sher son of Ghulam Rabbani seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.93 dated 18- 4-2004 registered at Police Station Cantt. Sargodha, for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P. P.0 .
2. The allegation against the petitioner as unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Feroze Tiwana son of Ghulam Jillani was that the petitioner and others had prepared a forged document purported to have been made by an arbitrator with a view to depriving him of his valueable landed property.
3. The petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha who dismissed the same vide his order dated 30-9-2004. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. M. Amir Khan Niazi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Aamir Rehman, the learned Addl. Advocate-General who was around in some other case and has appeared on Court's call, as also Mr. Shakil Tariq, the learned State counsel and have perused the record brought by Yousaf Ali S.I./1.0., Police Station Cannt. District Sargodha.
5. The Investigating Officer submits that after a thorough probe in the matter he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the case and he has recorded a specific finding of innocence qua the petitioner. In view of the finding recorded by the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel appearing for the State did not seriously oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
6. In view of the opinion recorded by the Investigating Officer, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry as envisaged by B subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order dated 8-10-2004 is hereby confirmed.