NOORUDDIN and others vs THE STATE
This petition is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the pre-trial bail application of the petitioners in a case registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 473, P.P.C. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when a civil dispute regarding the genuineness of a sale deed was already pending before a Civil Court and the penal provisions attracting imprisonment for ten years were not strictly applicable. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, holding that section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code was not attracted as no valuable security or will was involved, and that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, especially when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that bail in such offences is the rule and not an exception, and courts must exercise greater caution when allegations involve potential misuse of official influence by revenue authorities.
- Can criminal proceedings regarding the genuineness of a sale deed be initiated while a civil suit on the same matter is pending?
- Whether bail should be withheld as a punishment in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Does an allegation involving a forged sale deed necessarily attract section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 473, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 466, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This petition is directed against an order of the High Court of Sindh - dated 16-10-2008 in Criminal Bail Application No,541 of 2008.
2. The facts appear to be that the petitioner No,1 filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mehar claiming that he was the owner and in possession of a particular piece of land purchased from the father of the complainant through a registered sale deed. Nevertheless, the revenue authorities were not recording entries in his name at the behest of the complainant who was a Tapedar. Accordingly, he prayed for declaration and mandatory injunctions to protect his interests requiring the Mukhtiarkar to perform his duties under the law. Upon receipt of summons the complainant obtained a certificate from the sub-Registrar to the effect that the sale deed appears to be a forged document and after, obtaining order, from the Sessions Judge, Dadu got, an F.I.R.
Registered under sections 467; 468, 471, 472 and 473, P.P.C. Alleging commission of forgery on the part of the petitioner No,1 in connivance with petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners were taken into custody and their applications for bail were dismissed by the Court of Sessions as well as the honourable High Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Laghari, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the civil suit relying upon the sale deed had been filed by the petitioner No,1 and therefore the criminal law could not be set in motion till the question of genuineness or otherwise of the document was determined by the competent Civil Court. Moreover, he urged that even allegations in the F.I.R. Do not attract the provisions of section 467, P.P.C. Which is punishable with ten years imprisonment. Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned Prosecutor-General did not subscribe to the first contention but agreed that section 467 could not be attracted as no valuable security or will was involved.
4. Be that as it may, it is evident that section 467 not being involved the allegations could at best indicates an offence under section 471 read with 466 being not punishable with imprisonment for ten years or above. Honourable High Court completely overlooked the elementary principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and its grant in such offences is the rule and not an exception. The fact that the complainant happened to be a Tapedar and able of using his influence with revenue authorities, required the Court to act greater caution. Learned Prosecutor- General fairly conceded that he was unable to support the impugned order. We have accordingly converted this petition into an appeal and allowed the same directing that each of the petitioners to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the amount of Rs,100,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.