ABDUL QADEER vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Abdul Qadeer seeking pre-trial release in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Cantt. Kharian, District Gujrat, on the allegation of producing a forged status quo order before the police. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary offences are bailable, the non-bailable offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and substantial evidence regarding the preparation of the forged document is lacking at this stage. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that since offences under sections 420 and 471 are bailable, and section 468 falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt—especially in the absence of the original document and direct evidence of forgery—remains a matter for the trial court, thereby establishing the principle that bail should generally be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and require deeper evidentiary appraisal.
- Whether an offence under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a presumption of forgery be drawn solely on the ground that the accused is the real beneficiary of the disputed document at the bail stage?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary offences alleged are bailable and the remaining charge requires further inquiry?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Abdul Qadeer petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,148/2009 dated 12-10-2009 offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Cantt. Kharian, District Gujrat. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a forged status quo order before the Police.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that no forgery has been committed by the petitioner and the story has been fabricated to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that the petitioner did not produce the alleged forged document before the Police and even in this connection there is no evidence with the prosecution.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposes this bail application on the ground that petitioner was real beneficiary A of the alleged forged document, therefore, it can safely be inferred that he had prepared the document and that he had produced the document before the Police.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a forged document. A specific question was asked from the learned Additional Prosecutor-General whether there is any evidence available with the prosecution that the petitioner prepared the document so as to attract the provisions of section 468, P.P.C, answer was in the negative except the petitioner is the beneficiary, therefore, it would be presumed that he had prepared the document. Offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable. Even the original document is not on the file, therefore, the question whether or not the petitioner prepared the forged document, can only be B determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence.
Even section 468, P.P.C. Falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed FARAZ SHAH vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 535