FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 685 of 2009 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged fraudulent alienation of the complainant's land through a forged power of attorney. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, as the primary beneficiary of the allegedly forged transaction involving a close familial relation, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the handwriting expert's report corroborates the forgery. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail, noting that he was the direct beneficiary of a fraud perpetrated against his elderly sister and that previous non-conviction alone is insufficient for granting bail. The court established the principle that beneficiaries of fraudulent property transfers involving forgery, supported by forensic evidence, are not entitled to post-arrest bail notwithstanding the completion of investigation or lack of previous convictions.
- Is previous non-conviction alone a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether a beneficiary of a property transfer executed through a forged power of attorney is entitled to bail after arrest?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 guarantee the right to bail in cases of fraud and forgery?
- 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
' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 685 of 2009, dated 7-9-2009, for the offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Saddar Raiwind, District Kasur.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his other co-accused managed to alienate the land of the complainant in his name after preparing forged power of attorney.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an innocent person who has committed no offence. Further contends that the petitioner is neither a party to the alleged forged document nor any role has been ascribed to him pertaining to the preparation of alleged forged document. He avers that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation in the matter has already been completed, the petitioner is no more required by the police, moreover he is not previous-convict and there is no chance of his fleeing away, if he is admitted to bail, therefore, the petitioner be released on bail after arrest.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition and has contended that admittedly, the petitioner is a beneficiary in this case as the land belonging to the complainant has been alienated to him through fraud, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail, hence, the bail petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab and have also perused the record available on file with their able assistance.
6. The petitioner and the complainant are real brother and sister. The complainant of the case is an old illiterate lady whose land has been transferred in favour of the petitioner through a forged power of attorney and the petitioner is a beneficiary in this case. The I.O. Of the case has informed this Court that the thumb impression of the complainant was sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert who has reported that the thumb impression affixed on the disputed power of attorney differs from that of the complainant which further corroborates the version of the complainant that a fraud has been committed with her. The petitioner was arrested on 14-6-2010 and was sent to judicial lock up on 17-6-2010. The challan in the case has already been submitted in the learned trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a previous non- convict has no force, because the previous non-conviction is not a fit ground for the grant of bail. The petitioner has deceived the pious relation of brother and sister and has got alienated the property of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Hence, the criminal miscellaneous petition in hand has no force, the same is dismissed.