RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, a Patwari, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 468, 471, 420, and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The allegations involved forgery and interpolation of public records to benefit a third party, causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The petitioner argued that he was not responsible for the alleged forgery, attributing it to his successor, and contended that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court rejected these contentions, noting that investigation findings established the petitioner's guilt and that there was cogent material linking him to the forgery. The Court held that public servants are custodians of public rights and that the nature of the petitioner's conduct warranted an exception to the general rule of granting bail for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
- Does the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
- Can a public servant accused of forgery and interpolation of public records be denied bail despite the offence carrying a punishment that does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,5, dated 9-2-2007 registered under sections 468/471/420/467, P. P. C . Read with sections 5(2)/47, P.C.A. At Police Station A.C.E. District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was liable of interpolation and committed forgery in public record in his custody as Patwari to allow benefit to Bilal Ahmad and caused wrongful loss to Khushi Muhammad complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not liable for this offence.
The forgery if any had been committed by his successor. The correction had been made through Mutation No,1234. In the application addressed to Federal Ombudsman the complainant had not levelled any allegation against the petitioner. The punishment for this offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In fact there was a dispute between Bilal Ahmad and the petitioner and a civil suit was also pending in the Court. All these facts made this case as one of further inquiry. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to bail.
4. The petition was opposed by the prosecution.
5. During investigation/inquiry the petitioner was found guilty. There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant had any animus against the petitioner. Cogent material exists on record providing reasons to believe that the petitioner tried to play hell with the complainant through forgery. The public servants are supposed to be custodian of rights of the people. The act done by the petitioner brings this case under exception to the rule whereby bail is allowed in cases of offences involving punishment not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above fact, this application is held to be without any force which is hereby dismissed.