MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail was filed by the petitioner, a Nikah Registrar, seeking confirmation of interim bail in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and fraud. The petitioner was accused of preparing a fictitious Nikahnama in connivance with co-accused, which was subsequently utilized in a habeas corpus petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not initially named in the F.I.R. but implicated during investigation, was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of preparing a forged document, an act causing significant mental agony and disgrace to the complainant's family. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad interim bail previously granted. The judgment affirms the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be extended to accused persons involved in heinous offences where there is prima facie evidence of guilt, particularly when the act involves the fabrication of official documents like a Nikahnama.
- Is a Nikah Registrar entitled to pre-arrest bail when prima facie evidence suggests the preparation of a fictitious Nikahnama?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted for offences involving the fabrication of documents used in legal proceedings?
- Does the fact that an accused was not initially nominated in the F.I.R. automatically entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks his bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,. 188 of 2010, dated 25-6-2010, for the offences under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Saddar Darya Khan, District Bhakkar.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he being Nikah Registrar, in connivance with his co-accused, prepared forged and fictitious Nikahnama of Mst. Samina Kanwal, daughter of the complainant and the said Nikahnama was used in petition under section 491, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an innocent person who has not committed any offence. The police has registered this case with mala fide intention in connivance with the complainant party. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and was later on involved in this case through supplementary statement. The petitioner is of 62 years of age. He has joined the police investigation and is no more required by the police for investigation purposes. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail, therefore, the interim bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.
4. Conversely, learned District Public Prosecutor instructed by Abdul Razzaq, ASI has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
5 Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that Muhammad Bakhsh accused is a Nikah Registrar who in connivance with his co-accused prepared fictitious Nikahnama and thereafter a habeas corpus petition was filed against Mst. Samina Kanwal, daughter of the complainant on the basis of forged Nikahnama. During the investigation, the Nikahnama proved fictitious and the petitioner was found guilty of the offence of preparing forged Nikahnama. In our society this is a matter of great disgrace and definitely Mst. Samina Kanwal, complainant and his other family members have suffered a great mental agony and torture due to the unlawful act of the petitioner. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence and does not deserve to be granted bail before arrest as bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which cannot be extended in such like cases.
7. In nutshell, the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the offence of preparing the fictitious Nikahnama and is not entitled to the grant of bail before arrest. As such, the order dated 24-11-2010 whereby ad interim bail was granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled.