MANI LAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused facing trial for offences including theft and forgery. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of a disputed document purportedly transferring ownership of the vehicle in question to the applicant, which the prosecution alleged was forged. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the investigating agency failed to refer the disputed document to a handwriting expert to verify the authenticity of the signatures, rendering the prosecution's case against the applicant a matter of further inquiry. Furthermore, the court noted that the accused had been in custody for over six months, the investigation was complete, and the accused was no longer required for investigative purposes. The key principle laid down is that while police opinion regarding the nature of a dispute is not binding on the court, it cannot be ignored at the bail stage, and the failure to obtain expert forensic evidence regarding disputed documents can justify a finding of further inquiry, thereby favouring the grant of bail.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to refer a disputed document to a handwriting expert constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the opinion of a police officer regarding the civil or criminal nature of a dispute relevant at the bail stage?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 465, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Granted.
2. The applicant is facing trial for offences under sections 381-A/465/468/ 467/471 and 34, P.P.C.
2. Consequent upon registration of F.I.R. No.25 of 2004 at Police Station, A.C.L.C. Karachi City on 29-4- 2004 in respect of an offence committed on 9-6-2003. The applicant was arrested on 27-5-2004 according to the learned counsel for the applicant and on 28-5-2004 according to the learned counsel for the State.
3. ' Allegation against the applicant is that during the absence of one Laxman son of Tipoo who had left for Canada in 2001 and had parked his motorcar in the compound of his apartment, on blocks after removing the tires, the applicant has committed the theft of the said car and managed its registration in his name by preparing forged documents.
4. The defence plea taken during the investigation appears to be that the said vehicle was sold out by its owner Laxman to the applicant/accused through a document/declaration dated 27-10-2001 for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000 which were allegedly borrowed by him from the applicant/accused. The said document is shown to be attested by two witnesses as well as Oath Commissioner. It is confirmed by the learned counsel for the State that during the investigation the said document was produced before the Investigating Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in order to justify the implication of the applicant in the alleged crime, the investigating agency was under obligation to have referred the said document to Handwriting Expert along with admitted signatures of Laxman, whereafter, it could be taken into consideration as a strong piece of evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the said document was not referred to the Handwriting Expert, hence, at this stage defence plea has some force. Mr. Fareed has also referred to the comments filed by S.H.O., Police Station, Boatbasin in C.P. No. 1117 of 2003 filed by the said Laxman through his attorney Nisar Ahmed for a direction to the concerned S.H.O.
6. To register the F.I.R. In the said comments the S.H.O. Has opined that the matter appears to be of civil nature.
7. ' The learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea and argued that police opinion has no value.
8. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and objection raised by the learned State counsel. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in the absence of any expert opinion, prima facie it appears to be a case of further inquiry. It is yet to be proved as to whether the signatures on the said document are genuine or forged. Indeed opinion of police officer is not binding upon a Court but it cannot be ignored altogether, at least at the bail stage. The applicant is in custody for last more than six months and the investigation is over hence he does not appear to be reqUired anymore for the said purpose.
9. Under these circumstances it appears to be a fit case for grant of bail. However, under the circumstances, the surety will have to be furnished in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.