ZAHID JAVAID vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Zahid Javaid, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 49 of 2005, registered under sections 468, 471, and 473 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal. The allegation involved the forgery of signatures and the stamp of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Sahiwal, on a Wakalat Nama used in a bail application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the alleged offenses. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to obtain a Handwriting Expert's opinion to link the petitioner to the alleged forgery, and no incriminating recovery had been made from him. Holding that the case required further inquiry and that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, the Court granted bail. The principle laid down is that where offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly when trial conclusion is not imminent.
- Does the absence of a Handwriting Expert's opinion in a forgery case constitute grounds for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be granted when the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 473, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The petitioner, Zahid Javaid, seeks post-arrest bail in case baring F.I.R. No, 49 of 2005, dated 4-5-2005, under sections 468/471/ 473, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Sahiwal, District Sahiwal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has affixed fictitious signatures and stamp of Deputy Superintendent, Jail, Sahiwal, on a Wakalat Nama, which was used in a bail application titled as Muhammad Ahmad v. The State, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case due to mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as the police; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and that the opinion of Handwriting Expert has not been obtained by the prosecution.
' Learned State counsel has opposed this petition.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged the signatures of Deputy Superintendent Jail, Sahiwal, on the power of attorney and the same was used for the purpose of filing bail petition titled Muhammad Ahmad v. The State, before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, however, no opinion of the Handwriting Expert has been obtained by the prosecution so as to prove that the offence was committed by the present petitioner. Nothing has been recovered from him. A case of further inquiry has been made out, thus entitling him to grant bail. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereto is an exception. Respectfully reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.
The petitioner is behind the bars since 28-9-2005. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping him behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial.
6. Under the circumstances, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate.