Haji CHANAN BHATTI vs STATE
This is a criminal petition before the Lahore High Court seeking confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of being a marginal witness to a forged death certificate. The core legal questions involve the application of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused granted bail, the legal effect of conflicting police investigations, and the existence of mala fides due to underlying civil litigation. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail already granted. The key principles laid down include that conflicting police investigations bringing the guilt of an accused into doubt constitute a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused with a more prominent role is granted bail, and that prior civil litigation between parties can indicate mala fides in criminal prosecution warranting pre-arrest bail.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose role is lesser than that of a co-accused already released on bail?
- Do conflicting findings in successive police investigations make the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of an accused for the purpose of bail?
- Does pending civil litigation between the parties indicate mala fides on the part of the complainant in criminal proceedings?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him by this Court on 27.6.2008, in case FIR No, 504/2006 dated 17.8.2006 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC at Police Station Nishtar Colony District Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of the FIR are that he became marginal witness of the death certificate prepared by co-accused Allah Ditta and ultimately became the beneficiary of the said document.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely a marginal witness of the death certificate which was prepared by Allah Ditta and in fact Allah Ditta is the one who has prepared the death certificate and the present p peitioner is in no way the beneficiary of the said document, as he is not related to the deceased. He further submits that Allah Ditta, co-accused, had already been granted bail who is said to be main accused by the trial Court, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also released on bail as his role is much lesser than what it is assigned to his co-accused, who is the main beneficiary. He further argues that in the instant case two investigations were conducted, in the initial investigation, which was conducted by Muhammad Aslam, Inspector in which the petitioner was declared innocent but subsequently another investigation was initiated by Muhammad Afzal, DSP who had declared him guilty of the said offence, therefore, case of the present petitioner is clearly fall within the ambit of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has committed fraud and is fully liable to the commission of said offence and is also one of the beneficiaries. There are no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner with the commission of said offence, therefore, petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail, which is an extraordinary relief.
5. Learned DPG adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR but I am afraid it has not been established anywhere from the record that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the said document. Co-accused Allah Ditta, who has prepared the death certificate, had already been granted bail by the trial Court who has been assigned major role in preparing the forged document in which the present petitioner is marginal witness, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also allowed bail. Moreover, two investigations were initiated in this case, in an earlier investigation, the petitioner was held innocent but subsequently he was held guilty, I am afraid in such like situation when two investigations are at variance, no definite opinion can be formed regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. This factum makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry to his guilt.
Above all, mala fide on the part of the complainant is absolutely clear as civil litigation between the parties is already pending adjudication before the Civil Court, therefore, the complainant has got all the reasons in the world to implicate the present petitioner with the commission of the said offence.
7. Under the circumstances, I confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 27.6.2008 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Ilaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.