Pakistan Case Law
PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 940

SALAMAT ALI and another vs STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
CitationPLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 940
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No, 2298-B of 2004
Date2004-07-29
Judge(s)M. A. Shahid Siddiqui
ResultPetition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners, Salamat Ali, Muhammad Nawaz, and Muhammad Mansha, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 261/2003 registered under Sections 468, 471, 419, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Sultan, District Layyah, which related to the substitution of an accused in another criminal case to fabricate a plea of alibi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given their initial status as prosecution witnesses and the need for further inquiry into their complicity. The Lahore High Court held that since it remained to be established whether the petitioners acted in complicity or were cited as witnesses at their back, and noting their subsequent acquittal in the related murder conspiracy case, the matter warranted further probe. Consequently, the court accepted the bail petitions, enlarging the petitioners on bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the active complicity of an accused in fabricating false evidence or impersonation requires further inquiry and investigation, and they have been acquitted in related charges, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the complicity of the accused in fabricating a false alibi requires further inquiry?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a related murder conspiracy case justify enlarging them on bail in a connected fabrication case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where it is yet to be established whether they acted in complicity or were cited as prosecution witnesses without their knowledge?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 120, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailfabrication of alibiimpersonationfurther inquirycriminal conspiracy

ORDER

Salamat Ali and Muhammad Nawaz have applied for bail after arrest in a case under Sections 468, 471, 419 420, P.P.C. registered with Kot Sultan Police District Layyah vide F.I.R. No, 261/2003.

There is another application for bail moved on behalf of Muhammad Mansha (Crl. Misc. # 2153- B/2004) arising out of the same F.I.R., which I intend to dispose of through this order.

2; On 21.10.2003 a case under Sections 302, 109, 324, 120, read with Section 34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Chowk Azam District Layyah vide FIR No, 304/2003 in which Muhammad Arif son of Allah Ditta was cited as the principal accused. During the investigation of this case, it transpired that on 16.10.2003 FIR No, 247 was registered at Police Station Kot Sultan District Layyah at the instance of Waris for causing damage to the standing crops and in this case Muhammad. Aleem son of Nawaz Din got himself arrested and lodged in jail for Muhammad Arif in order to fabricate the plea of alibi of Muhammad Arif in case FIR No, 304/2003 registered at Police Station Chowk Azam District Layyah.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioners were cited as PWs in the case registered at Police Station Kot Sultan vide FIR No, 247 dated 16.10.2003. It is yet to be established whether they themselves opted to become witness in complicity with Nawab Din and his two sons or they had been cited as PWs in the said A FIR at their back. They have also been acquitted in the murder case in which they were charged for having conspired the offence. Considering it a fit case for further probe and inquiry I accept both the petitions and enlarge the Petitioners on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees Thirty Thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.