MUHAMMAD NAEEM PARACHA vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition is directed against the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is a petition writer by profession and is implicated in case F.I.R. No. 3 dated 2-2-2008 under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific allegations, handwriting matching, or recovery of benefits are attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific allegations were made, the alleged forgery did not match the petitioner's handwriting, and he was not a beneficiary of the transaction, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of record pointing towards further inquiry warrants the grant of bail.
- Is a petition writer entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific allegations of forgery or recovery are attributed to him?
- Does the absence of financial benefit from alleged forged documents constitute a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether pre-trial incarceration serves any useful purpose when the accused's handwriting does not match the disputed documents?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
TARIQ JAVAID, J.---Muhammad Naeem Paracha, petitioner, through this petition seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,3 dated 2-2-2008, offence under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is petition writer by profession and the alleged forgery is not in his handwriting; that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged forged documents; that no recovery is effected from him and he is behind the bars since 3-8-2009; that keeping the petitioner behind the bars shall serve no useful purpose to the prosecution.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has maintained that the petitioner is accomplice and he does not deserve any leniency of concession of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioner who is petition writer. Admittedly, the forgery on the deed does not resemble with handwriting of the petitioner nor it has been shown any benefit he was likely to get out of the alleged forgery. It appears to be a case of further inquiry.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of 50,000 each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NASRULLAH PANHWAR and another vs The STATE 2016 YLR 1163