ABDUL RASHEED and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by two individuals accused of facilitating fraud in a land transaction. The petitioners were alleged to have identified a person posing as the complainant before a Sub-Registrar to execute a fraudulent power of attorney, which led to the illegal sale of the complainant's property by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who acted as identifiers, possessed the requisite criminal intent (mens rea) to be held liable for the fraud. The court observed that the investigation did not conclusively establish that the petitioners acted with malafide intent or knowledge of the fraud, noting that they may have been deceived by the co-accused. Consequently, the court held that where the role of the accused is doubtful and the investigation lacks clear evidence of criminal intent, the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the accused. The court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that without clear proof of animus or criminal intention, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Does the lack of clear evidence regarding criminal intent in a fraud case entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can an identifier in a fraudulent property transaction be granted bail if the investigation fails to establish their prior knowledge of the fraud?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The learned counsel seeks pre-arrest bail of petitioners in F.I.R No,277/08, dated 3.9.2009, under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 PPC, registered at P.S. Pasrur City, District Sialkot.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R, the complainant lives in England since 1985. In his absence, his real brother Muhammad Javed Iqbal son of Muhammad Shafi got made a fake Identity Card of complainant and on the basis of the same got prepared a fake power of attorney from complainant in his favour. According to the F.I.R, on the basis of the fake power of attorney, he sold his 73 kanals 11 marlas land in favour of Accused No, 6 to 11 as mentioned in the F.I.R. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that they identified Muhammad Kaleem Akhtar (complainant) before Sub-Registrar for execution and completion of general power of attorney deed No, 166 on 16.12.2003.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Petitioner No, 1 being a lawyer, prima facie, believed the identity card of the complainant in possession of the accused, Javed Iqbal and identified the execution/completion of general power of attorney. He had no malafide on his part or acquired any benefit out of the said transaction. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are ready to support the version of the complainant before any forum as they want to disassociate themselves from any act of co-accused, Javed Iqbal.
4. According to the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, during the course of investigation, it has been found out that petitioners did not know that a fraud was being played on part of co- accused, Javed Iqbal, the petitioners were allured and dragged into this matter deceitfully.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners facilitated the offence committed by co-accused Javed Iqbal, whereby, complainant was caused huge financial loss.
6. I have heard and considered the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. According to the I.O., there is no other case of similar nature, etc. against the petitioners and investigation in this case has been conducted fairly and honestly. Apparently, the main focus of the F.I.R is at Javed Iqbal, who seemingly took advantage of complainant's absence from the country and hence sold his property by forging documents and in collusion with some revenue officials, it is not clear whether role played by the petitioners was intentional, malafide or they have just been exploited by co-accused, Javed Iqbal, in preparation of the fake documents. Since I am doubtful about the role of the petitioners., therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the petitioners, particularly, when the I.O. himself has not come out with any finding or incriminating evidence against the petitioners. In such facts and circumstances, it is difficult to believe whether animus/ Criminal intention, exists in the actus reus attributed to petitioners.
7. For the above reasons, this bail application is allowed. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or. Area Magistrate.