HAYAT KHAN and 3 others vs THE STATE and another
This matter arose from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners in a criminal case registered under Sections 419, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sahiwal. The core allegation in the First Information Report was that the petitioners, along with others, had prepared a forged agreement to sell to dishonestly acquire the complainant's land. The central legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the subject dispute was essentially of a civil nature, a civil suit for specific performance was already pending prior to the registration of the criminal case, and compromise proceedings had taken place between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the record and compromise proceedings prima facie established that the controversy was inherently civil in nature and already pending adjudication before a competent civil court. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the criminal allegations arise from a dispute that is prima facie civil in nature?
- Whether the prior institution of a civil suit for specific performance concerning a disputed agreement to sell warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail in a subsequent forgery case?
- Does the existence of compromise proceedings between parties indicate a civil dispute justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Petitioners namely Hayat Khan, Mehmood Khan, Ali Sher and Falak Sher, seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,110/07 dated 27-9-2007 under sections 419, 468,471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Lines District Sahiwal.
2. According to F.I.R, the precise allegation against the petitioners is that they along with others prepared a forged agreement to sell in order to grab the complainant's land.
3. It is contended that civil suit filed by the petitioner-Hayat Khan for specific performance of the disputed agreement was filed on 21-7-2007 much before the registration of the instant case; that the instant case has been got registered by the complainant to wriggle-out of the said sale agreement. It is further submitted that even recently complainant had entered into a compromise, Photostat copy of which has been placed on record, with regard to the criminal litigation and also the civil litigation. It is thus, concluded that the matter in dispute is inherently one of civil nature.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application whereas the learned counsel for the complainant does not deny the fact of compromise through an agreement dated 14-4-2008, however, submits that both the parties resiled from the said agreement rather he has also placed on record an affidavit of Hayat Khan-petitioner with regard to the same dispute.
5. I have considered the contentions raised from both sides.
6. The proceedings of compromise between the parties which have been placed on record, prima facie, indicate that the dispute between the parties is one of civil nature which is pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, this application is allowed and the pre-arrest A bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 7-3-2008 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. . Bail conformed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD INAM ALI vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 323