Muhammad Mubashir vs State and another
This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Mubashir, in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery under Sections 420, 468, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the disputed property transfer was executed via a registered sale deed, which had not been challenged in any forum, thereby negating the prima facie case for forgery under Section 468. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence under Section 420 is bailable, and the offence under Section 468 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The Court emphasized that since the prosecution's case relied on documentary evidence already in police custody, there was no risk of tampering. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.
- Does the offence under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable in nature?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case is based on documentary evidence already in the custody of the state?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Muhammad Mubashir seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 40/2020, dated 06.4.2020, offences under Sections 420, 468, , 34, PPC, registered with the Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal, at the instance of Mst. Naseem Bibi complainant.
2. As per narration of crime report, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused dishonestly prepared registered sale deed and transferred the complainant's property in his favour .
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. The petitioner is assigned role of receiving complainant's property in his favour . Admittedly , there was a dispute of property between the complainant and petitioner's father , who later on got transferred his share in favour of the petitioner via registered sale deed. The said registered sale deed is entered in the relevant register of Sub- Registrar concerned. Meaning thereby , the petitioner has not prepared any forged document, which is necessary element to constitute the offence under Section 468, PPC. Even otherwise Section 468 PPC does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr .P.C. The, of fence under Section 420 PPC is bailable in nature.
5. Besides above, the said registered sale deed has not been challenged before any forum by the complainant.
There is nothing on record to establish that the transfer of disputed property in his favour was in the knowledge of the petitioner . Prima facie , the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. The liabili ty of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court having recourse to the evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest without any progress in the trial of the case. Nothing incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of the case.
Besides, case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the documentary evidence and relevant record has already been collected and seized by the Investigating Officer and same is in the custody of the prosecution, hence, there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Ayaz Ahmad Khan v. The State and others (PLD 201 1 Supreme Court 171).
6. For the above reasons, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admi tted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court.