Lahore] Babu AMEER ALI and anothers vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who were implicated as marginal witnesses in a sale deed alleged to be forged and fictitious. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given their limited role as witnesses, the absence of personal benefit, and the existence of prior civil litigation regarding the disputed document. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the alleged forged document had been produced in civil proceedings, thereby invoking the bar under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires a written complaint by the Court for cognizance of such offences. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and no recovery was required from the petitioners. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners were not beneficiaries of the transaction and the FIR was registered with significant delay.
- Does the production of a document in civil proceedings require a written complaint by the Court for the registration of an FIR regarding forgery under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are marginal witnesses to a sale deed entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are not beneficiaries of the alleged forged document?
- Does the absence of a requirement for recovery from the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Do offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within 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 475, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 476, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 463, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.---Babu Ameer Ali and Ramzan Ali, the accused-petitioners seek their pre- arrest bail in case FIR No,16-2013, dated 7-1-2013, registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471,, P.P.C.
At Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are marginal witnesses of the sale deed which has been got executed and registered on the basis of fictitious agreement to sell prepared in favour of Maqbool Ahmad, co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that case against the petitioners is false and fictitious one; that the petitioners are only marginal witnesses of sale deed, which was duly registered before Sub-Registrar and they are not beneficiary of the document in-question; that nothing is required to be recovered from them, therefore, they are entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. He has relied on "Muhammad Aslam v. The State" (2009 P.Cr.R. 1252), "Sakina Bib!, and others v. The State and others (2011 YLR 851) and "Abdul Rasheed, and others v. The State"
4. This application has been opposed from complainant side and it is contended that the petitioners were part and parcel of the fraud allegedly committed by co-accused Maqbool Ahmad in preparing the forged and fictitious agreement to sell on behalf of the complainant and disposing of his property by deceitful manners. The complainant filed a suit for cancellation of document in- question. The case was registered and Saqlain appeared before I.O. Who stated that no record of stamp paper was available and Sabir through which stamp paper was purchased, stated that he did not purchase any stamp paper,1therefore, they are not entitled to the confirmation of their pre- arrest bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon "Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. The State, and others" (2013 PCr.LJ Lahore 252) and "Muhammad Tariq v. Addl: Sessions Judge, and others" (2012 PCr.LJ 285)
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The petitioners have not been assigned any role in preparation of alleged forged document in- question in favour of Maqbool Ahmad. They are only signatories of said alleged sale deed as marginal witnesses and they are not beneficiary of the said document. The civil litigation regarding the matter in dispute is pending before the competent Court of law. The alleged agreement to sell was prepared on 11-9-2002 (sic) and on the basis of which, main accused Maqbool Ahmad filed a suit for specific performance on 7-6-2003 before the Civil Court, whereupon, the complainant filed a suit for cancellation of the said agreement on 26-6-2003 and both suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court and the complainant after 11-years with mala fide intention and ulterior motive got registered the instant FIR. The said alleged agreement to sell had been produced before the Court and the said Court can take cognizance of offence referred under section 195(1)(C), Cr.P.C. Which is reproduced as under:-- ' Prosecution of contempt of lawful authority of public servant: ' Prosecution for certain offences against public justice: Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence:--
(1) No Court shall take cognizance.
(a) ----------
(b) ----------
(c) Of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.
' The Investigating Officer did not collect any material evidence against the present petitioners. The said alleged agreement to sell has been exhibited in evidence and same is also not available on record. The prima facie, the petitioners could not be held guilty. The offence under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Is not cognizable, whereas offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is compoundable. None of the alleged offences fell within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Nothing is required to be recovered from them; therefore, their arrest in this case will bring undue humiliation for them in the public. In such circumstances, they are entitled to the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail.
' Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and pre-arrest bail already granted to the present petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.