Ch. IRFAN ALI and another vs The STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Ch. Irfan Ali and another seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 112/16 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the general allegations of forgery, lack of direct evidence, and absence of complaints from the actual property owners. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of statements from the real owners and direct evidence of forgery, coupled with forensic reports indicating the complainant thumb-marked the documents, the petitioners' pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where mens rea and involvement in forgery require determination through trial evidence and real owners have not lodged complaints, pre-arrest bail may be granted and confirmed on tentative assessment.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is a lack of direct evidence and the real owners of the property have not lodged any complaint?
- Can mens rea regarding forgery be validly determined at the bail stage without recording trial evidence?
- Does a forensic fingerprint report verifying thumb impressions on disputed documents justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, Ch. Wan Ali and Sohail Anjum petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case. FIR No,112/16, dated 02.03.2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per FIR there is general allegation against the petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Razzaq that they with their common intention allegedly prepared forged documents i,e, agreement to sell regarding the disputed property in favour of petitioner Ch. Irfan Ali and some receipts of payment and on the basis of the same tried to occupy the disputed property.
4. Order sheet reflects that on 13.06.2016, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Erum Sajad Gull (not available because of summer vacations) had directed the police official present in Court, to obtain thumb impressions of the complainant and verify the documents, in compliance thereof the alleged agreement' to sell and three original receipts were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency along with specimen of thumb impressions of the complainant Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz and in this regard Latent Fingerprint Examination Report dated 15.07.2016 is available on police file that reflects that in fact complainant had himself thumb marked those documents and the result and conclusion of the Fingerprint Experts is as under:- "After complete examination, one questioned thumb impression marked as Exp/B-I on original "Iqrar Nama Baey" No, 45584 dated: 02-05-2015 (Item No, 1.1.) and two questioned thumb impressions marked as Exp-B-/II and Exp-B/III on two original "Raseed Wasooli Raqam" dated: 06-07-2015 and 29-10-2015 (Item No, 1.2) were individualized as the left thumb of Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz son of Mian Khairati (Item No,1.3)."
When confronted, learned Law Officer confirms that complainant is not the affected party in the alleged crime because Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad are real owners of the property mentioned in the FIR who have been affected with the alleged forgery, if any and at the most they could lodge an FIR against the culprits in the crime. He further confirms, that no application has ever been moved on behalf of said Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad regarding preparation of any forged documents, by the petitioners. Ghulam Qadir ASI/Investigating Officer present with record frankly concedes that he remained fail to associate said Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad real owners of the property in the investigation. Learned Law Officer also points out that the alleged forged documents have been prepared between the petitioners and the complainant and in absence of statements of original owners of the disputed property, police remained fail to conclude the investigation.
' Prima facie, there is no direct evidence available on record against the petitioners regarding their involvement in commission of the alleged forgery and in absence of any statement of original owners of the property, the mens rea, if any, against the petitioners can validly be determined by the learned trial court after recording of some evidence by the learned trial court and I do not find any justifiable reason to send them behind the bars. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition. Is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2016, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from today.
5. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. It is further observed that after record statement of the original owners of the disputed property, in case any cogent evidence comes on record regarding the culpability of the petitioners in this case, the State or any affected party can move an application for cancellation of their bail, if so advised.