NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations related to a fabricated agreement to sell. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, being named in the F.I.R. as a marginal witness to an allegedly fraudulent agreement and where police obtained permission from the Illaqa Magistrate, is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the considerations for pre-arrest bail differ from post-arrest bail, and given that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and prima facie connected with the offense, no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires distinct considerations and will be refused where an accused is specifically nominated and implicated in the crime.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is specifically named in the F.I.R. as a marginal witness to a disputed agreement to sell?
- Can the police investigate a non-cognizable offence when permission has been obtained from the Illaqa Magistrate?
- What are the distinct considerations for the grant of bail before arrest versus bail after arrest?
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- 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 offence is made out and this Court has already quashed the proceedings on the basis of such-like 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.H.O. Police Station, Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah.
228, wherein it was held tharpolice can investigate non-cognizable offence, along with 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.