MUHAMMAD MUNIR and 2 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 330 of 2004, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal intimidation related to a housing scheme dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the findings of the investigating officer. The court noted that the investigation conducted by the S.P.-CRO, Lahore, concluded that the complainant failed to provide evidence supporting the allegations of forgery and that the complainant's version was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the investigating officer had directed the preparation of a report for the cancellation of the case. The court observed that the complainant failed to appear to contest the bail application. Holding that the petitioners were falsely implicated with mala fide intent, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation reveals no evidence to support the allegations in an F.I.R. and recommends case cancellation, the accused is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the investigating officer concludes that the complainant failed to provide evidence and recommends case cancellation?
- Does the absence of the complainant during bail proceedings affect the court's consideration of the merits of the bail application?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.330 of 2004 registered in Police Station, Kahna, District Lahore under sections 420, 468, 471 and 506, P.P. C .
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Saleem Akhtar Bhatti, complainant, resident of 12-Canal Park, Gulberg-II, Lahore stating therein that he had set up a Housing Scheme in the name of Ahmadpur Housing Scheme. One Muhammad Saleem used to work with him previously as salesman. He obtained a stay order against him from the learned Civil Court at Lahore. During the pendency of the said case Qaisar Rafiq accused told them that if they made a statement in the Court that in case Muhammad Saleem alias Major sells the land, Sajjad and he i.e. The complainant will have no objection and in this way, the stay order issued by the Court will come to an end. In this way the accused got prepared a fictitious agreement to sell on his behalf in favour of Sajjad Hussain. He also prepared a forged receipt regarding the payment of Rs.2,500,000 on behalf of Sajjad Hussain.
On the basis of those forged/fictitious documents the accused later on tried to occupy the land of his Housing Scheme and also indulged in firing. They also issued threats that in case possession of the land was not handed over to them, they will kill them. The occurrence which had taken place on the night between 5/6 May, 2004 was witnessed by Riaz and Zulfiqar P.Ws.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It appears from record that the case was investigated by the S.P.-CRO, Lahore and the accused petitioners joined the investigation. As a result of thorough investigation he observed that the complainant party was unable to produce any solid evidence about the commission of offence of forgery by the accused. He did not agree with the story narrated in the F.I.R. He came to the conclusion that the complainant party had failed to prove its version as contained in the F.I.R.
Hence it was directed by him that a report be prepared for the cancellation of case. He further directed that a final report in the matter be sent to the Capital City Police Officer.
' It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed his arguments on 17-9-2004 but the learned counsel for the complainant requested for adjournment and it was on his request that the proceedings were adjourned till tomorrow but yesterday or even today the learned counsel for the complainant has failed to put in appearance. As mentioned above, it appears that as a result of investigation the complainant part was unable to prove any evidence before the Investigating Officer in support of its version and hence the S.P.-CRO who was investigating the case has issued instructions for preparation of report for cancellation of the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the case .Against the petitioners was without any basis and that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party with mala fide intention and with ulterior motives.
5. In view of what has been stated above, the petitioners are clearly entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this bail application is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners Muhammad Munk, Asad Bashir and Amir Ali Shahzad is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh. Bail bonds in the sum of Rs.35,000, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within seven days.