Syed Tanseer Ali Zaidi and another vs State and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who were accused in FIR No. 212/2015 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of running a housing scheme using a forged No Objection Certificate. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the investigation status. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that while they were named in the FIR, the specific allegations of impersonation and forgery were not directly attributed to them in the FIR contents, and that the investigation revealed the forged document was allegedly prepared by a co-accused who had not yet been joined in the investigation. Furthermore, the petitioners were previous non-convicts, had already joined the investigation, and were not required for recovery. The Court emphasized that while guilty persons can be punished later, unjustified incarceration of innocent persons cannot be remedied, thus confirming the bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused has already joined the investigation and is not required for recovery?
- Does the absence of specific allegations of forgery or impersonation in an FIR against an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the potential for unjustified incarceration of an innocent person a valid consideration for granting interim bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. Syed Tanseer Ali Zaidi and Badar Muneer Kiani petitioners have sought, pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 212/2015, dated 16.10.2015 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Jhelum in respect of of fences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 109, PPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
This is pre-arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are running a housing scheme on the basis of forged "No Objection Certificate" of Tehsil Municipal Administration Jhelum, but Tehsil Municipal Officer has not issued any such certificate in their favour . It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioners are named in FIR, yet the fact remains that from the contents of FIR, only the allegation of fraud and using forged document has been leveled against them and the FIR of the instant case does not contain any allegation regarding impersonation or preparing forged document against them, so the attraction of offences under Sections 419 and 468 PPC to their extent shall be decided by the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. As far as offences under Sections 420 and 471, PPC are concerned, the same are bailable in nature. It has come on the surface of record during the course of investigation that the alleged forged document was prepared by co-accused Amir Ghafoor Inspector , Tehsil Municipal Administration Jhelum, but said Amir Ghafoor co-accused has not so far been joined by the investigating officer with the investigation of this case.
Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. They have already joined the, investigation and their person is not required to the investigating officer for the purpose of effecting recovery , therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars. I may observe here that an ultimate conviction and incarceration of guilty persons can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to them but no satisfactory reprisal can be offered' to innocent persons for their unjustified incarceration at any stage of I case if they are acquitted in the long run.
3. For what has been discussed above, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in their favour . Resultantly , this petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide this Court's order dated 11.2.2016 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.