MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
This criminal petition was brought before the Lahore High Court seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged preparation of a forged agreement used to obtain a civil court stay order. The core legal questions were whether an attesting witness to a forged document is entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when the principal accused has already been granted pre-arrest bail, and whether offences outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify bail. The Court held that the petitioner, as an attesting witness, stood on a better footing than the principal accused and was entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency. The Court laid down the principles that where the primary charge under Section 467 PPC is prima facie inapplicable, the remaining offences carry sentences under seven years, falling outside the prohibitory clause, and complete investigation with documentary evidence warrants bail confirmation.
- Is an attesting witness to an allegedly forged document entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if the principal accused has already been granted bail?
- Does an offence carrying a maximum sentence of seven years fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the investigation is complete, evidence is entirely documentary, and no recovery is required from the accused?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through the petition the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.433 of 2006 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused is alleged to have prepared forged agreement and on the basis of the said document obtained a stay order from the civil Court against the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the principal accused namely Muhammad Saleem Raza has already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned lower Court on 21-6-2006 and the case of the petitioner being on even a better footing he was also entitled to the . same concession; that the only allegation against the petitioner was that of attesting of the said documents as a witness and no benefit had been derived by him there-from; that there is a long chain of litigation criminal as well as civil pending between the accused side and the complainant party on account of which the petitioner had been falsely involved in the case. No recovery had to be effected from the petitioner and since the investigation was complete, as such the petitioner was not required by the police; that the evidence in the case was all documentary in nature, hence, if released on bail there was no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence; that the provisions of section 467, P.P.C. were not applicable to the petitioner and the maximum sentence provided under the other penal provisions was 7 years, hence the case of the petitioner was not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such the' case against the petitioner being one of further enquiry he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the only role assigned to the petitioner is that of attesting the agreement purported to have been forged by the main accused Muhammad Saleem Raza who although being the main accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21-6-2006. Since the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than the aforementioned Muhammad Saleem Raza, as such, under the law of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession; that mala fides of the complainant for false involvement of the petitioner are obvious from the fact that a number of criminal cases are pending between the parties. Further, no recovery has to be effected from the petitioner and the investigation being complete, challan has been submitted in the Court. The evidence in the case is documentary in nature and there is no likelihood of the petitioner's tampering with the same. The offence under section 467, P.P.C. is prima facie not attracted to the case of the petitioner and the other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable with maximum sentence of 7 years, hence, the same are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The record reveals that presently there is not enough evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crimes alleged against him.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-8-2006 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-566/L Bail confirmed.