Sardar Ahmad etc vs State etc
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 408 dated 13.10.2018, registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Pakpattan, on allegations of preparing and using a forged divorce deed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the non-prohibitory nature of the offences and the complainant's failure to produce the star witness. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that none of the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the petitioners had joined the investigation with no recoveries pending, and that the conduct of the complainant reflected mala fide. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail should ordinarily be confirmed when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and mala fide on the part of the complainant is prima facie established.
- Are offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the intentional avoidance of the investigation process by the complainant reflect mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused have joined the investigation and no physical recovery is required?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Sardar Ahmad, Muhammad Muheem, Abdul Hameed and Babar Ali, petitioners seek bail before arrest in case FIR No. 408 dated 13.10.2018,-of fence under Sections 420, 468 and 471, PPC registered at Police Station City Pakpattan District Pakpattan.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they prepared forged and bogus divorce deed and used the same as genuine.
3. Again the complainant seeks adjournment on the ground that learned counse l engaged by him is again not available and the reason for absence of his learned counsel is not known to him. On the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned on the request of the complainant hence, I do not find it appropriate to adjourn this case anymore.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Petitioner Sardar Ahmad is the father of Mst. Tameem Bano, Muhammad Maheem, petitioner is her maternal uncle while Babar Ali, petitioner claims that he married Mst. Tameem Bano on 16.08.2018 when she had been divorced by the complainant on 30.04.2018 that was decred effective by the marriage registration certificate dated 16.08.2018 issued by the Municipal Committee, Pakpattan. Abdul Hameed, petitioner is also a close relative of the lady. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintains that complainant divorced Mst. Tameem Bano and thereafter , she married Babar Ali. During the proceedings of an application filed by the complainant under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on 10.05.2018, Mst. Tameem Bano while appearing before, the learned Sessions Judge denied her relationship with the complainant as is evident from the order dated 10.05.2018. The complainant got registered another case FIR No. 111 dated 10.05.2018 in which Mst. Tameem Bano got recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on 14.06.2018 and maintained that the accused persons including the petitioners were innocent and she then willingly accompanied her father Sardar Ahmad, petitioner . On 20.08.2018, after her marriage with petitioner Babar Ali, Mst. Tameem Bano filed a harassment petition against the complainant and others and a direction was issued on the same day. During the arguments, learned Prosecutor has added that despite repeated requisitions by the investigation officer, the complainant is not producing Mst. Tameem Bao, the star witness of this case to get her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code ibid and being so, is intentionally avoiding the process of law. This, in view of this Court prima facie, reflects mala fide on the part of the complainant. The petitioners have joined the investigation and the investigation officer present in Court maintains that the prosecution case hinges on the documentary evidence which is on record, the petitioners are not required for any recovery and they have already joined the investigation.
None of the offences alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sections 468 and 471, PPC are non-cognizable whereas, Section 420, PPC is bailable. In view of above, sending the petitioners behind the bars is neither likely to serve any useful purpose nor seems justified.
For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and ad-interim bail before arrest already allowed to the petitioners is hereby 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 the learned trial Court.