PARGAT MASIH vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 166 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, on allegations of forging an agreement to sell land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause and a civil suit regarding the validity of the disputed agreement was already pending adjudication. The Lahore High Court held that since certain offences were bailable, the remaining offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the validity of the agreement was sub judice before a civil court, the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that bail in such circumstances is a rule and refusal an exception, consequently accepting the petition and granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the validity of a disputed agreement attract further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail considered a rule and refusal an exception in cases where an accused is a previous non-convict and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Pargat Masih through the instant petition has prayed for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,166 registered under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. With Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal on 22-6-2009.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that Pargat Masih (petitioner) and others, with fraudulent intention, have forged an agreement to sell from the complainant in order to grab his land.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars since 23-6-2009 and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by other side.
4. The fact also remains that the offence under sections 420/471, P.P.C. Is bailable, whereas the one under section 468, P.P.C. Is not covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. Another important aspect of the matter is that he on the basis of the alleged forged agreement to sell has brought a suit for specific performance of the contract against complainant Muhammad Sarwar. I have been informed that the same is pending determination before a competent Civil Court at Chichawatni. Any verdict regarding its validity or otherwise is to be returned therefrom. Till such time, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt and so, subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is attracted to his case. In such like cases, grant of bail, even otherwise, is a rule and refusal an exception. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of "Safeer Hussain v. The State" (2009 P.Cr.R. 947 Rawalpindi).
6. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.