NASEER AHMAD vs STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a matter involving allegations related to an agreement to sell executed on a blank paper involving non-cognizable and cognizable aspects. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, being named in the F.I.R. as a marginal witness to a disputed agreement, makes out a case for pre-arrest bail, and whether police can investigate non-cognizable offences alongside cognizable ones. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being specifically named and implicated as a marginal witness of the disputed agreement, is not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that considerations for pre-arrest bail differ from post-arrest bail, and that police possess the authority to investigate non-cognizable offences when connected with the matter and upon obtaining permission from the Illaqa Magistrate. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when named in the F.I.R. as a marginal witness to a disputed agreement?
- Can the police investigate non-cognizable offences along with cognizable offences upon obtaining permission from the Illaqa Magistrate?
- Are the considerations for the grant of pre-arrest bail different from those for post-arrest bail?
ORDER
Learned counsel submits that offences are non-cognizable, that petitioner is only the marginal witness, that now said agreement to sell has been handed over to the police, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, nothing is to be recovered, that in fact no occurrence is made out and this Court has already quashed the proceedings on the basis of suchlike offences and in this regard, he has relied upon 2006 PCr.LJ 906 and PLD 2003 Lah. 228.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. that Abdul Hameed father-in-law of the petitioner was tenant under the complainant, that on blank paper agreement to sell had been made, that no receipt was issued by the complainant for receiving Rs. 3,70,000, that police has also got permission for investigation from learned Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a case titled as Sanaullah v. S.H2O. Police Station, Civil Linef, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 228, wherein it was held that police can investigate non-cognizable offence, alongwith cognizable offence whether permitted or not.
3. Heard. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. As far as two co-accused, who were allowed bail by this Court are concerned, according to the F.I.R. there was no allegation against them. So far as, petitioner is concerned, he is the marginal witness of agreement to sell, which was not even written on stamp paper, there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant, police had the authority to investigate the matter relating to non-cognizable offence in view of the judgment passed by this Court in a case titled as Sanaullah v. S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 228, even otherwise the Investigating Officer had taken the permission of investigation, from learned Illaqa Magistrate. One should keep in mind, this is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant for bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed.