RAZA HUSSAIN AKHTAR vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Raza Hussain Akhtar, in connection with FIR No. 128/2010, registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused attempted to process a land mutation using a forged power of attorney, which was discovered to have a fake seal and signature from the Sub-Registrar's office. The petitioner argued that the FIR was delayed, the alleged offences were largely bailable or non-cognizable, the fraud was incomplete as the mutation was not attested, and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court observed that several of the charged offences were bailable or non-cognizable, and that the offence under Section 419 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the case required further inquiry and noting the principle of consistency regarding the bail granted to co-accused, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Does an offence under Section 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the principle of consistency applicable when co-accused have already been granted bail in the same case?
- Does the failure to complete a fraudulent transaction, such as the non-attestation of a mutation, entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- 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 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Raza Hussain Akhtar/petitioner/accused seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 128/2010 dated 1.2.2016 u/Ss. 419/420/467/468/ 471/186 PPC registered at PS. Gulgasht District Multan.
2. This case stands registered against the petitioner and others on the application of Imtiaz Ahmad Warraich/Naib Tehsildar Cantt. Multan/complainant stating therein that on 13.1.2010 he was present in his office while performing official duty when one Allah Ditta came there and told that he has purchased 8-Kanals 13-Marlas of land in village Neel Kot for a consideration of Rs, 40,00,000/- (forty lac) and he wants to get its mutation. Some other persons were also with him. On this he directed Halqa Patwari to enter the mutation which was accordingly entered. He then directed the said persons to deposit the mutation fee through challan and to get possession of the purchased land and then to reappear before him on 14.1.2010. On this date, the said person along co-accused Allah Rakha s/o Rahim Bakhsh accompanied by some other persons appeared before him and produced the registered general power of attorney vide No, 1986/4 dated 30.8.2006 registered with Sub Registrar Office Cantt. existing in the name of the petitioner (Raza Hussain Akhtar Bhatti) on behalf of the vendees Sidra and Iram daukhters of Khalil Ahmad relating to the suit property. The accused were asked, to get verified the registered power of attorney under reference which they got verified. During attestation of mutation, it was noticed that the registered power of attorney was not genuine. It was sent for verification from where it was reported that signature/office seal of the Sub-Registrar Office Cantt. Multan are fake and fictitious. On this the above named accused along with Allah Ditta fled away from the office of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay of 18 days in the lodging of the FIR which is unexplained. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The neither prepared the alleged forged document nor presented the same before the Complainant/Respondent No, 2.
Offences u/Ss. 186/467/468/471 PPC are not cognizable. Offence u/S. 420 PPC is bailable. Offence u/S. 419 PPC is not made out against the petitioner. Since the mutation was ultimately not attested by the Revenue Officer, therefore, fraud, if any has not been completed. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during investigation by the police. Offence u/S. 419 PPC does not fall under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Pre-arrest bail of co-accused Abdul Rehman has been confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Multan while co-accused Hussain Bakhsh and Sajjad Hussain have been admitted to post arrest bail by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge Multan. Petitioner has, thus, become entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. He is not a previous convict. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner/accused may be admitted to post arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. on behalf of the State strongly opposed this bail application.
5. Arguments heard. Record persued.
6. Admittedly offence u/Ss. 186, 468 and 471 PPC are not cognizable. Out of them offence u/Ss. 186 & 471 PPC are also bailable. Likewise offence u/S. 420 PPC is bailable. Likewise offence u/S. 467 (1st Proviso) is bailable and also non-cognizable. Offence u/S. 419 PPC does not fall under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Offence in this case had not yet completed when detected which makes the case against the petitioner of further inquiry. Earlier pre-arrest bail of co-accused Abdul Rehman has been confirmed while bail after arrest of co-accused Hussain Bakhash and Sajjad Hussain had been accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Multan, I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.