MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Muhammad Siddique and others, in connection with FIR No. 220/02. The case, initially registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding abduction, was later converted to offences under Sections 471, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations that the petitioners produced a forged Nikahnama. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the marriage and the reliance on a handwriting expert's report to establish forgery. The Court held that the case presented two competing versions of events, and the determination of which version was truthful was a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence. Crucially, the Court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail applications, granting the petitioners post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an offence under Sections 471, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies solely on a handwriting expert's report in the face of conflicting versions of events?
- Is the determination of the validity of a Nikahnama a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Muhammad Siddique filed Crl. Misc. No. 3425/B2004 and Muhammad Yousaf etc. filed Crl. Misc. No. 3842/B-2004 for the grant of post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 220/02 dated 20.10.2002 initially registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance No. VII of 1979 at Police Station Shah Kot District Sahiwal on the statement of Muhammad Murad alleging abduction of his wife Mst. Sallan, by Muhammad Mansha, Shahamand, Rani Bibi and Riaz alias Kali which having been found false as Muhammad Mansha and Mst. Sallan Bibi claimed to be married with each other, offences u/Ss. 471/420/468 PPC were applied against the petitioners for producing forged Nikahnama and through this single order I propose to dispose of the same together.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after registration of the case initially regarding abduction, the nominated accused did not appear whereupon the proceedings under Sections 87/88 Cr.P.C. were conducted and they for the first time appeared after two years of the registration of the case on 23.2.2004 with a claim that Mst. Salan had contracted nikah with Mansha and the story narrated in the FIR regarding her .abduction was false. According to the learned counsel merely on the basis of the report of Hand Writing Expert the police came to the conclusion that the Nikahnama produced by the petitioners was forged one, whereas sufficient evidence was produced on the record to prove that Mst. Salan was married with Muhammad Murad complainant and father of Mst. Salan was also witness of the said nikahnama. Reliance is placed on "1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2045", in support of his contentions.
3. Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes this application.,
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Originally Muhammad Murad was the complainant in the above-said case and according to him the alleged abductee, namely, Mst. Salan Bibi was married with him, who was abducted by Mansha and others.
They did not appear for about two years before the Investigating Officer in the present case and were declared proclaimed offender. However, subsequently stand was taken by them that they were married with each other and the earlier story narrated by Murad complainant was false. It is a case of two versions and the police had joined the witnesses of both the parties during the investigation and the nikahnama produced by the said complainant was found to be registered with Nikah Registrar in the year 1998. Merely, on the basis of the report of the Hand Writing Expert the petitioners have been challaned and which one version is correct will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. None of the offence with which the petitioners are allegedly involved does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Hence both Crl. Misc. No. 3425/B-2004 and Crl. Misc. No. 3842/B-2004 are accepted and the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Yousaf, Mughla and Muhammad Murad are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.