MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias SHAHBAZ and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by two accused, Muhammad Rafique alias Shahbaz and Abdullah alias Muna, in connection with F.I.R. No. 97/09 involving alleged offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations regarding a forged birth certificate, and whether the investigation was lawful despite claims that certain offences were non-cognizable. The Court held that while the case against Muhammad Rafique required further inquiry, entitling him to bail, the case against Abdullah alias Muna did not warrant pre-arrest bail as he was prima facie responsible for producing the forged document. The Court established the principle that when an F.I.R. contains at least one cognizable offence, all other offences joined in the same F.I.R. may be investigated as if they were all cognizable, thereby rejecting the argument that the investigation was unlawful due to the nature of the specific sections involved.
- Can an investigation proceed for all offences in an F.I.R. if only one of the offences is cognizable?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are prima facie linked to the production of a forged document?
- Does the inclusion of a non-cognizable offence in an F.I.R. alongside cognizable offences render the investigation unlawful?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Muhammad Rafiq alias Shahbaz and Abdullah alias Muna petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,97/09 dated 31-1-2009 for offences under sections 420/468/471 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Hanjerwal, Lahore.
2. The ground taken is that the offences under sections 420/471 P.P.C. Were bailable whereas offence under section 468 P.P.C. Was not made out; that the petitioner had not produced the alleged forged certificate of birth relating to the alleged abductee Mst. Chanda and that case against the petitioners at all events required further inquiry. It was also argued that the name of the father of the alleged abductee was not correctly noted in the alleged forged certificate.
3. Grant of bail was opposed by learned APG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I quite, see that in the course of investigation of case F.I.R. No,938/08 registered under section 496-A, P.P.C. At Police Station Hanjerwal, Lahore, Abdullah alias Muna petitioner had produced the relevant birth certificate. It was secured through a recovery memo. Which was attested by him. Whatever may be the correct name of the father of the alleged abductee, the fact remains that the forged A certificate was produced by Abdullah alias Muria petitioner. It was found to be a fake and forged document as per report of the concerned Union Council. Evidently, the birth certificate of Mst.
Chanda was bolstered-up to forestall a defence. Since the recovery memo. Through which the aforesaid fake birth certificate was taken into possession was attested by Abdullah alias Muna, he was prima facie responsible from bottom to top for offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
5. The other petitioner Muhammad Rafiq alias Shahbaz is husband of Mst. Chanda alias Sadia who is accused of case F.I.R. No,938/08 as aforesaid and was granted bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 29-10-2008. The bail granted to him was sought to be cancelled vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,10777-CB/08 which has been dismissed by me vide separate order. The case to the extent of Muhammad Rafiq alias Shahbaz in my view requires further inquiry. He is entitled to bail. As far as the argument that offence under section 468, P.P.C. Was not cognizable and, therefore, the investigation is not lawful, is concerned, I am afraid, the same has no force. The reason is that when one of the offences in one F.I.R. Is cognizable, all the other offences could be investigated as if all were cognizable. There is no dearth of authority on the point.
6. For all the above reasons, the application to the extent of Muhammad Rafiq alias Muna is accepted. Interim bail before arrest granted to him vide order dated 13-3-2009 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. However, to the extent of Abdullah alias Muna, no case for bail before arrest is C made out. The application to his extent is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Rabi Khan vs The State 2025 SHC KHI 1708