Muhammad Jameel And Another vs The State And Another
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 334/2008 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan, on allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal breach of trust regarding the property of the complainant's deceased husband. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the absence of the original receipt. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to make out a case for bail as prima facie involvement in a cognizable offence involving fraud and forged documents was established, and bail in non-bailable offences cannot be claimed as of right merely because the offense falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that bail in non-bailable offenses is not a matter of right even if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause, particularly when tentative assessment connects the accused to the crime.
- Whether bail in a non-bailable offense can be claimed as of right if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the non-production of an original receipt and agreement in a fraud case establish tentative malice against the accused for the purpose of bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. - Through this petition, petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 334/2008, dated 15.9.2008 registered under Sections 420/468/471/406 of the P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that th- petitioners are innocent; that they have been involved in the Case due to ulterior motive; that civil litigation is pending between the parties and the matter is of civil nature and that the offence under Sections 461 and 471 of the P.P.C. Is non-cognizable and the police was required to. Obtain permission from the learned Illaqa Magistrate concerned to investigate the case whereas Section 420 of the P.P.C. Is not made out from the contents of the F.I.R. And even otherwise it is bailable.
3. The learned D.P.G. Has stated that through fraud the complainant lady has been deprived of the valuable property; the complainant is widow of Muhammad Khalil, who was running the business at by-pass road in the name of Fine Tyre House; that the husband of the complainant died and thereafter relatives of said person started efforts to unurp his property and through false and fictitious receipt dated 1.3.2006 prepared on behalf of the complainant's husband, two trailers Nissan bearing No. TLE- 883 and TLA-783 arid one car Toyota 2-D bearing No. RNP- 8826 have been obtained by the accused/petitioners.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. The original receipt, of trailers and car mentioned above is not on the file but there is only affidavit of one counsel that said receipt had been lost and the trailers had been stolen. The vehicles are still in the name of the husband of the complainant. The complainant being widow and legal heir is entitled for the property of her deceased husband according to law. The original agreement is also not on the file. Non-production of receipt dated 1.3.2006 shows the petitioners tentative malice and prima facie it is established that they are connected with the commission of crime. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not helpful to the petitioners, because it is settled law that in a non-bailable offence the petitioners cannot claim bail as a right, In is regard judgments of the apex Court reported as Muhammad Siddique Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442), Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 278) and a judgment of Division Bench of the Court reported as Muazzam Khan v. The State (2001 YLR 3040)(Lahore) are relied upon.. The petitioners have defrauded the complainant and have prima facie taker, into possession valuable property of the complainant by preparing forged and fictitious receipt and agreement. This shows prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the commission of a cognizable offence. This petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.