MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns six consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, an ex-councillor, facing charges under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his age, the alleged cancellation of the fraudulent land mutations, and the contention that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petitions, holding that the petitioner’s involvement in the fraudulent alienation of 1599 kanals of Shamlat Deh land was substantiated by the record and his own prior admission of guilt. The court established the principle that the review or cancellation of fraudulent mutations does not constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail. Furthermore, the court clarified that bail is not a matter of right even in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the review or cancellation of fraudulent land mutations constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is bail a matter of right in criminal cases that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused claim entitlement to bail solely because the alleged offense falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 577/B of 2011, 578/B of 2011, 579/B of 2011, 580/B of 2011, 581/B of 2011 and 582/B of 2011, as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.
2. The petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. Nos. 17/2010, 24/2010, 21/2010, 20/2010, 15/2010 and 14/2010, dated 4-8-2010, under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)/47, PCA, registered with Police Station ACE, Jhelum.
3. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was owner of only 14 kanals 6 marlas of land in the revenue estate Mohal, District Jhelum while the petitioner in league with the revenue staff has alienated land measuring 1599 kanals from Shamlat Deh of the village and had deprived majority of land owners of village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends that petitioner has innocently been involved in the case by the Anti-Corruption Establishment with ulterior motive. The subject-matter of F.I.R. No.17 is also the subject matter of other F.I.Rs. Registered against the petitioner. Further contends that all the land which was alienated by the petitioner have been cancelled because of review of mutations. The petitioner has not derived any benefit out of these transactions as the mutations of sale have been reviewed. The petitioner is infirm person of 71 years of age who was made scape goat by the revenue authorities. The case of petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 14-3-2011 when his pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi. He is no more required for any further investigation. Therefore, petitioner be granted bail after arrest.
4-A. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition and contends that the petitioner is a ex- councillor who had alienated 1599 kanals of land in league with the revenue staff. The Petitioner has committed a heinous crime and valuable land situated near G.T Road was alienated through fraud and in this way caused financial loss and mental torture to being member of owners of Shamlat Deh of revenue estate Mohal, therefore, all the bail petitions be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner had alienated 1599 kanals Shamlat Deh land through various sale deeds and mutations knowing this fact that he is owner of only 14 kanals and 6 marlas in village Shamlat Deh. It is also important to mention here that petitioner is an Ex-councillor, well familiar with the revenue matters. On coming to the knowledge of this fraud, a number of landowners submitted applications to the Commissioner as well as to the Chief Minister of Punjab on whose instructions an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Director Anti-Corruption, Jhelum as well as Investigating Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment, Jhelum who found that the petitioner along with his co-accused (other revenue officers) are fully involved in these fraudulently transaction. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the mutations of sales have been reviewed is no A ground for the grant of bail. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail is misconceived because no one can ' claim B the bail as a matter of right in offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases "Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State" reported as (2008 SCM R 807) and "Muhammad Rafique v. The State" (2008 SCM R 678). Particularly when he admitted his guilt before the District Officer Revenue, Jhelum on 21-8-2009 when the petitioner made a statement that he has no objection if the Mutations Nos. 853, 854, 815 and 862 are reviewed. Challan of the case has submitted before the trial court. All the bail petitions are without any substance, same are dismissed.