MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ramzan and Taj Din in connection with F.I.R. No. 215 of 2008, registered at Police Station Sadar Nankana Sahib. The petitioners were initially charged with offences including abduction, which was later deleted during investigation, and substituted with charges of cheating and forgery under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of evidence regarding forgery and the potential mala fides of the complainant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery, noting that the Investigating Officer confirmed the affidavits in question were executed voluntarily as part of a compromise, and that the complainant's subsequent denial stemmed from a dispute over payment. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer stated that the petitioners' physical custody was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail applications must be decided based on the merits of the case and the presence of mala fides, rather than static application of rules.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation reveals that the alleged forgery was actually a voluntarily executed document?
- Is the physical custody of an accused necessary for investigation when the alleged forged documents have already been produced before the police?
- Does the deletion of a major charge during investigation and the substitution of other offences warrant a review of the necessity of arrest?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this application Muhammad Ramzan and Taj Din petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in the case F.I.R No,215 of 2008, dated 22-4-2008, registered at the Police Station, Sadar Nankana Sahib, in respect of offences under sections 365, 420, 468, 471, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that during the investigation the prosecution's case was found false and consequently, offence under section 365, P.P.0 was deleted. However, without any rhyme or reason, offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Were added; that the offence under section 420, P.P.0 is bailable, whereas offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.0 are not cognizable but the investigation was conducted without seeking any permission from the concerned Magistrate; that on the basis of same facts, Muhammad Irfan, co-accused, has been granted after-arrest bail, therefore, the case of the petitioners is at par with that of the said Muhammad Irfan, co-accused.
3. Conversely, the learned D.R.G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application, on the ground that, though, during the investigation, offence under section 365, P.P.C. Was deleted, yet, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Were added quite in accordance with law; that the petitioners are not entitled to bail on the rule of consistency, inasmuch as, Muhammad Irfan, co-accused had been granted after-arrest bail, whereas the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail and that the application, in hand merits dismissal.
4. After hearing both the parties and going through the relevant record, I have A gathered that during the investigation, the prosecution's story, qua allegation of abduction of the complainant, was found to be false, consequently, the offence under section 365, P.P.0 was deleted. But, instead of recommending the cancellation of the case, offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., were substituted by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the police file, prima facie, reveals that there is no evidence of forgery against the petitioners, rather, according to the findings of the Investigating Officer, the complainant party had, indeed, executed the Questioned affidavits, whereby a compromise, qua the earlier case, was effected between the parties, voluntarily, but due to the fact that the consideration amount for effecting a compromise, was not paid to them, they disowned the execution of the said affidavits. After returning the said findings, a legal opinion was sought by the Investigating Officer, which suggested the inclusion of the said offences after deleting section 365, P.P.C. Prima facie, there is, neither any specific allegation of commission of offence of forgery, nor is there any solid evidence in this regard.
5. Besides, the affidavits, alleged to have been forged, have already been produced before the Investigating Officer, who, on Court's query, has categorically stated that he does not need the physical custody of the petitioners.
6. The crux of the matter is that the possibility of registration of this case, due to the mala fides of the complainant, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the law of bail is not a static law, therefore, while deciding the pre-arrest bail application, the Court cannot be oblivious to the merits of the case.
7. Consequently, while placing reliance on the cases of Meeran Bux v. The State and another, PLD 1989 SC 347, Muhammad Ismaeel v. Ghaus Bux, 1990 PCr.LJ 2013 and Aftab Gul v. The State, 1989 PCr.LJ 1599, this application is accepted and the pre-arrest bail, granted to the petitioners vide order dated 30-6-2008, is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.