SAKINA BIBI And Others vs THE STATE And Another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of forgery and theft related to a disputed property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail given the existence of a registered sale deed and pending civil litigation regarding the property. The Court held that the case against the petitioners constituted a matter of further inquiry. The Court observed that the allegation of forgery was specific to petitioner No. 1, yet a registered sale deed existed, and the Sub-Registrar had confirmed the petitioner's ownership in the relevant records. Furthermore, a local commission appointed in parallel civil proceedings had verified the petitioners' possession of the property. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal dispute is rooted in a property matter supported by registered documents and pending civil litigation, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does the existence of a registered sale deed and pending civil litigation regarding the same property make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the prosecution's allegation of forgery is contradicted by official records from the Sub-Registrar?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Petitioners seek their bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.84 of 2010 dated 24-1-2010 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 380, P.P.C. At Police Station Factory Area, Lahore.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant is owner of suit house which was rented out to the petitioners but petitioner No.1 prepared a forged and fabricated- sale- deed in her favour in respect of suit house situated at Al-Noor Town, Lahore.
3. The petitioners applied for their bail before arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore which was dismissed on 19-5-2010, hence this petition,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. The petitioner No.1 purchased the suit house against consideration and there is a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner. He further contends that civil suit is also pending between the parties in respect of suit house, therefore, the case against the petitioners is of further inquiry so ad interim bail dated 24-5-2010 granted to the petitioners be confirmed.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role, during investigation, upto the level of A.S.P., they were found guilty. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which could not be granted to the Petitioner who are criminals.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. According to the contents of F.I.R., the allegation of forgery has been levelled only against petitioner No.1 Sakina Bibi that she prepared a forged and fabricated sale deed in her favour in respect of suit house. Record shows that there is a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 and at the last page of registered sale deed the photographs of vendor, vendee and the witness are also affixed. According to the registered sale deed, the petitioner purchased the said house on 21-10-2009. A suit in this respect is also pending before a competent court of law who during the proceedings appointed a local commission to seek a report about the possession over the suit land and the local commission has approved the possession of the petitioners over the suit land.
I.O. Has further pointed out that statement of Sub-Registrar was recorded on 13-5-2010 who has confirmed that petitioner No.1 has been shown as owner in the relevant record. In the there is no allegation that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have executed a forged document or signed any forged document marginal witness etc. The civil litigation is pending between the parties before a competent Court of law. All these facts makes the case of further inquiry against the petitioner.
8. In the circumstances, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 24-5-2010 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.