FARYAD ALI vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 353 of 2007, involving allegations of forgery and fraud under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of orchestrating a fraudulent property sale agreement, wherein he allegedly misrepresented the property owner and received a significant portion of the illicit proceeds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly invoking the rule of consistency given that co-accused had been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. It distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused, noting that the co-accused were exonerated by the complainant, whereas the petitioner was identified as the mastermind who received the majority of the fraudulent funds. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to join the investigation despite being granted interim relief. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not available where the accused is the primary beneficiary of the alleged crime and fails to cooperate with the investigative process.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused who is the primary beneficiary of a crime when co-accused have been exonerated by the complainant?
- Can pre-arrest bail be denied to an accused who fails to join the investigation after being granted interim relief?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the investigation identifies them as the mastermind behind the alleged forgery and fraud?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 353, dated 27-3-2007 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, North Cantt., Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and others are alleged to have prepared a forged agreement to sell regarding the house of one Kashif Saifi and fraudulently received Rs,4,00,000 from one Tahir Shah. In the forged agreement to sell one Jan Muhammad was mentioned as owner of the house instead of Kashif Saifi.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Tahir Shah and Jan Muhammad, the purported buyer and the owner of the property respectively were allowed pre-arrest as well as post-arrest bail by the learned lower Court and therefore, keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession, that the forged document does not bear the name, signature or thumb-impression of the petitioner who was not a beneficiary of the said document, therefore, the case of the petitioner was one of further enquiry, that the petitioner had joined the investigation and since he had not signed any document, therefore, nothing had to be recovered from him.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant . Has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It has been noticed that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role has been ascribed to him. According to the Investigating Officer the petitioner is a property dealer and the master mind behind the crime. The total sale price of the house was fixed at Rs,4,00,000 out of which the petitioner has received Rs,3,30,000, thus he is the beneficiary of major portion of the amount fraudulently received by the accused. Tahir Shah and Jan Muhammad were allowed bail by the learned lower Court on the basis of two affidavits sworn in by the complainant which disclose that the said two persons were also victims of the fraud perpetrated by the petitioner and therefore, they have been let off by the complainant after being satisfied of their innocence in the matter. The document in question was sent for comparison of the signatures and the report received reveals that the signatures of the complainant had been forged on the said document.
During investigation the petitioner was found to be fully implicated in the crime by the police.
Moreover, after being allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court on 20-6-2007 the petitioner has failed to join the investigation and has made an attempt to do so only last night. No mala of the complainant or the police have been shown or established by the petitioner for his false involvement in the case.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, no case for bail before arrest is made out. The petition having no force is dismissed.