AMEER KHAN and 2 others vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three individuals accused of offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given allegations that they submitted bogus sale-deeds as surety bonds in a previous judicial proceeding, and whether the registration of the FIR complied with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief, noting that they appeared to have been deceived by the surety who managed the fraudulent documents. Crucially, the Court observed that the alleged offence occurred during judicial proceedings, necessitating strict adherence to the procedure under section 195(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was not followed. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the petitioners had themselves initiated legal action against the surety for fraud and that the underlying case in which the documents were submitted had been found false during the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the dubiousness of the prosecution's case.
- Does the commission of an offence during judicial proceedings require adherence to the procedure under section 195(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before police registration?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused demonstrates they were deceived by a surety regarding the authenticity of documents?
- Does the finding that an underlying case is false during investigation impact the entitlement to pre-arrest bail in a subsequent related case?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 195(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Ameer Khan, Aman Ullah and Muhammad Ali (petitioners) seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.963 of 2012 dated 6-7-2012 registered for offences under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. At Police Station, Islampura (Lahore).
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that they sought ad interim bail before arrest from the Court of a learned Addl: Sessions Judge at Lahore in case F.I.R. No.267 of 2012 under section 380, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Green Town, Lahore and filed surety bonds on the basis of bogus documents/sale-deeds which were declared as such by the Sub-Registrar Ravi Town, Lahore.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioners appear to have fallen prey to the crookedness and unscrupulousness of the surety, Muhammad Idrees who, single-handedly, managed the whole affair, on the strength of two bogus sale-deeds. The offence as noted above, has certainly been committed during the course of judicial proceedings which rendered it essential that the procedure as enshrined in section 195(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been followed in letter and spirit before the matter was reported to the police for registration of a case against the petitioners. Whether or not the complainant was an aggrieved person or he had the legal authority to lodge the F.I.R. In question can only be determined by the learned trial Court, while looking into the requirement of law. Even otherwise the petitioners moved an application before the learned Area Magistrate on 7-5-2012 for filing fresh bail bonds by contending that they had been deceived by the surety Muhammad Idrees. One of the petitioners namely Ameer Khan got registered case F.I.R. Nos.1220 of 2012 dated 1- 9-2012 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. At Police Station Islampura (Lahore) against the above said surety, for having committed an offence of cheating, fraud and forgery. There is another important circumstance which may not be lost sight of that caseF.I.R. No.267 (supra) was found false during the course of investigation. The dubiousness of the prosecution case, as it appears from the tenor thereof, entitles the petitioners to grant of the relief prayed for.
4. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 vide order dated 9-10-2012 is confirmed subject to 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.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Tabinda Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 1037