MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Yaqoob, who was charged with offences under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, and 177 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of fraudulent land transfer using a power of attorney after the principal's death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner should be granted bail, noting that the disputed property had already been returned to the complainant through a civil court decree following the petitioner's consenting statement. Furthermore, the Court observed that the parties were real brothers engaged in multiple litigations against each other. Crucially, the Court determined that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prescribed punishments did not include death, life imprisonment, or ten years' imprisonment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory cases, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the return of disputed property through a civil court decree constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving forgery?
- Are offences punishable by less than ten years imprisonment considered to be outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 177, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Ali, the petitioner, by filing the instant bail petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 123/2009 dated 01.03.2009 registered at Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan far an offence under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 177 P.P.C. at the instance of Mehboob Ahmad, complainant, Respondent No, 2.
2. Briefly allegations against the petitioner are that Muhammad Yaqoob accused/petitioner was general attorney of his father, who died on 17.06.2008, however, accused/petitioner knowing that his power was terminated on the death of principal, by fraud and forgery transferred land measuring 15-Marlas on the strength of power of attorney in favour of his son on. 12.06.2008. Niaz Ahmad, co-accused of the petitioner acted as identifier before the Sub-Registrar during the process of registration of the document. During investigation Section 467 PPC has been added, hence this case.
3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Multan, who vide order dated 19.10.2009 dismissed the same. Thereafter, petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide order dated 18.02.2009 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant and the accused petitioners are real brothers; they have got registered criminal cases against each other, further contends that real mother of the complainant and the petitioner and sisters support the stance of the petitioner accused and falsify the stance of the complainant; property in dispute has been returned to the complainant and there is delay of near about eight months in lodging the FIR, false implication cannot be ruled out; offence does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception in cases offence not falling under Prohibitory Clause and the sentence for which offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life for 10 years as it has been held in cases Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545), therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is named in the FIR, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Earlier Muhammad Yagoob, petitioner withdraw bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No, 4635-B-2009 vide order dated 23.12.2009. Petitioner and the complainant are the real brothers. Their father has executed general power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Yagoob in his life time, who died on 07.06.2008. Petitioner allegedly got transferred the land measuring 15-Marlas on the strength of that power of attorney in favour of his sons on 12.06.2008. Complainant had filed a civil suit in which the petitioner has recorded his consenting statement and decree was pased in favour of the complainant and the land in dispute was transferred in the name of the complainant. Keep in view the special circumstances of the case, when the land in dispute has been returned to the petitioner through the decree of the Civil Court after recording the consenting statement of the petitioner in the Civil Court, it will not serve any useful purpose keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period Complainant and the petitioner are used to get registered case against each other. Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such like cases, grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception in cases not falling under prohibitory clause and the sentence for which offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years as it has been held in cases Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545): "Even in case, where a person is accused of non-bailable offence and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause. meaning thereby that the punishment prescribed for the offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years, the grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal is exception."
8. In the light of above discussion, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Observations made above are of tentative in nature will not prejudice the case of either side in the trial.