Ghulam Sarwar vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 130 registered at Police Station Basti Malook, Multan, for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the entitlement of the accused to pre-arrest bail where a challan under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was submitted and the applicability of the prohibitory clause to the alleged offences. The Lahore High Court held that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the question of forgery warranted further inquiry, and the offence under Section 420 was compoundable. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and involve questions of further inquiry, pre-arrest bail is appropriately confirmed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the question of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 one of further inquiry at the bail stage?
- Whether an offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable?
- What is the remedy for a complainant who has been dispossessed of a plot by a subsequent purchaser during the pendency of a civil suit?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.- The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 130, registered with Police Station Basti Malook, Multan on .18.4.2006 for an offence under Sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
2. It, is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier Cr. Misc. No. 1413-B of 2006 was filed which was, later on, withdrawn on the statement of Karam Dad, SI that a cancellation report was being submitted, however, suddenly the petitioner came to know that without further investigation challan under Section 512, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted against the petitioner in the said case, therefore, necessity has arisen for filing the present application.
3. The complainant who is present in person states that in fact the plot was sold to him by wife of Rana Ashiq AN and also by Rana Muhammad Sarwar-brother of Rana Ashiq in the year 1994 and possession was also delivered to him. However, later on, same plot has again been sold by them to Malik Arif Ameer and Mubarik Ali by showing the disputed plot and thereafter said Malik Arif etc. Illegally occupied the said plot during the pendency of suit filed by him for permanent injunction.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have, also gone through the record. Admittedly, the complainant obtained the possession of the plot but later on he was dispossessed by the subsequent purchaser. In this view of the matter the complainant has a remedy by moving an application seeking possession in the suit by way of amendment in the plaint and in case of he successfully proved that the sale in his favour was prior to the sale in favour of Arif etc. He would definitely get the possession of the same through the Court.
5. Again the question as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted simultaneously under Sections 420, P.P.C. As well as 468, P.P.C. Is one of further inquiry and further the offence under Sections 468/471, P.P.C. Are non- cognizable whereas the offence under Section 420, P.P.C. Is compoundable. None of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause and question of forgery cannot be determined at this stage. Resultantly,. The pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) (with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within ten days.