Syed FAZAL ABBAS SHAH vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 758 of 2008 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Ghaziabad, Lahore, concerning allegations of cheating, forgery, and defrauding the complainant of heavy sums of money through a fraudulent land transaction. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail despite failing to join the investigation and remaining absent from court hearings without explanation. The Lahore High Court held that the conduct of the petitioner in avoiding appearance and failing to join the investigation, coupled with the serious nature of the allegations involving cheating and forgery, disentitles him to discretionary relief. The court laid down the principle that an accused person who fails to join the investigation and shows contumacious conduct by remaining absent without justification is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused who fails to join the police investigation is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does absence from court hearings without justification justify the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition?
- Whether serious allegations of cheating and forgery warrant the denial of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 758/08 dated 6.11.2008 for offences under Section 420/468/471/ 467/109 PPC registered at Police Station Ghaziabad, Lahore.
2. The brief facts as per prosecution case contained in FIR are that the petitioner along with his co- accused took the complainant at a place in Johar Town, Lahore and showed land measuring 6- kanals and 18-marlas owned by one Noor Muhammad. The petitioner represented the complainant about the ownership and arranged for a meeting with the so-called owner and in order to get the mutation sanctioned from patwari, complainant paid Rs 10,00,000/-. The petitioner again took the complainant to so-called owners Noor Muhammad etc. and on demand he paid Rs, 10,00,000/- more. An agreement was also executed. The petitioner was delivered a receipt of the amount. Thereafter, it came into his knowledge that a fraud was committed because neither the revenue official shown was genuine nor the so-called owners. The complainant was defrauded and fleeced through a planned machination.
3. The petitioner applied his pre-arrest bail to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore which was dismissed on 19.12.2008. He approached this Court on 1.1.2009 seeking his pre- arrest bail, which was granted subject to the condition that he shall remain in attendance on each and every date of hearing and join the investigation. The petitioner is not in attendance despite due knowledge of the date. He also has not appeared before the investigating officer in order to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has simply requested that he wants to withdraw this petition. No reason for nonappearance of the petitioner has been explained His pre- arrest bail has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for valid reasons. The conduct of the petitioner reveals that he wants to remain on pre-arrest bail and to avail maximum time without joining the investigation. The offence of cheating and forgery against him is of serious nature He fleeced the complainant for heavy amount. He had been granted sufficient time to join the investigation to prove his innocence but despite it he without any justification is absent. The conduct of the petitioner and nature of allegations apparently do not justify the grant of bail which is dismissed, accordingly.