Haji Muhammad Rafique vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 480, registered under sections 468, 471, 420, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of cheating and impersonation in a land transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of impersonating a housing scheme to purchase property, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given conflicting evidence regarding the transaction's legitimacy. The Court observed that an investigation report by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the statement of the Local Commissioner both indicated that no impersonation occurred and that the transaction was a voluntary sale by the vendors. While the complainant alleged impersonation, the vendors were unavailable for interrogation during the proceedings. The Court held that, based on the prima facie evidence provided by the police report and the Local Commissioner, the petitioner was entitled to bail. However, the Court confirmed the bail subject to the condition that if subsequent investigation of the vendors reveals evidence to the contrary, the bail would be liable for cancellation, preserving the complainant's right to seek such relief.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when investigation reports prima facie support the petitioner's innocence despite allegations of fraud?
- Is a court empowered to grant bail subject to the condition of future cancellation if subsequent investigation yields contrary evidence?
- Does the unavailability of key witnesses during bail proceedings necessitate the denial of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER The matter pertains to case FIR No. 480, dated23.10.2005, registered under sections 468/471/420/406 P.P.C, at Police Station Barki, Cantt. Lahore.
2. The petitioner is before this Court or ad-interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 15.12.2005.
3. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that in a land transaction which had already been settled between the vendors of that property and a Housing Scheme called as Paragon, he surreptitiously impersonated the said Paragon and brought about a transaction between himself and those vendors. But it is also said that he did pass on money to them.
4. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, a cheating was played with M/s Paragon and they were deprived of their land. They alleged that they were impersonated, otherwise the vendors of the property would not have made a second transaction and sale to the petitioner which, it is said, was also done suddenly.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed on considerable consideration to the vendors and this very act of his removed all doubts which have been expressed by Paragon, the complainant side, it is said that M/s. Paragon has no case at all and if they have a case, they have a case against the vendors who were also accused.
6. The matter was investigated by the A.S.P. Cantt, and a copy of his report dated 16.1.2006 is placed on the file, wherein he has come to the conclusion that no case was made out against the petitioner.
7. When this matter came up before this Court, the I.O. Was directed to ascertain when and under what circumstances this sale-deed was registered and also to find out whether there was a truth in the allegations of Paragon with respect to impersonation. An adjournment was given for this purpose. The I.O. Recorded the statement of the Local Commissioner, who had recorded the statements of the vendors upon the sale transaction and according to the Local Commissioner no impersonation took place and the sale transaction was purely a transaction between the petitioner and those vendors who have voluntarily chosen to retract their commitment to Paragon and negotiated and settled the transaction with the present petitioner.
8. It is said by the learned counsel for Paragon that the statement of the Local Commissioner has no worth because he was a man chosen by the petitioner for purposes of transaction. .
9. Tariq, Inspector/I.O. Was further asked to produce vendors and an adjournment was given by this Court to this effect. But the vendors were not produced and the excuse taken before this Court is of a bereavement in their family.
10. Now before this Court there are two basic pieces of evidence which prima facie look favourable as far as the petitioner is concerned. These are report of the ASP which has been further endorsed by the ASP (Investigation) and the statement of Local Commissioner who went to execute the document. The question of impersonation is still to be established and the best persons for this purpose are the vendors, who have also to be investigated by the I.O./ASP (Investigation) but presently they are not available. This bail application has been lingering on. So, on the basis of two pieces of evidence made available on the file, this Court feels appropriate to pass the following order. The bail of the petitioner is confirmed but this is subject to condition that in case ASP (Investigation) calls the vendors,. Interrogates them and comes to the contrary view then what is already said in the two reports will be liable to cancellation and the other side can always make an application for cancellation of the bail. Therefore, this confirmation of the bail application is absolutely without prejudice to the right of cancellation as has been sated above.
11. With these observations, the matter stands disposed of.