GHULAM SARWAR Versus State
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Basti Malook, Multan. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given that the dispute involved civil elements regarding property possession and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the question of simultaneous prosecution and forgery required further inquiry, and none of the offences fell within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and involve questions requiring further inquiry, pre-arrest bail is to be confirmed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the question of forgery in a property transaction a matter of further inquiry?
- Can a complainant seek possession through civil proceedings when a subsequent sale is disputed?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130, registered with Police Station Basti Malook, Multan on 18-4-2006 for an offence under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No.1413-B of 2006, was filed which was, later on, withdrawn on the statement of Karam Dad, S.-I. that a cancellation report was being submitted, however, suddenly the petitioner came to know that without further investigation challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the petitioner in the said case, therefore, necessity has arisen for filing the present application.
3. The complainant who is present in person states that in fact the plot was sold to him by wife of Rana Ashiq Ali and also by Rana Muhammad Sarwar brother of Rana Ashiq in the year 1994 and possession was also delivered to him. However, later on, same plot has again been sold by them to Malik Arif Ameer and Mubarik Ali by showing the disputed plot and thereafter, said Malik Arif etc., illegally occupied the said plot during the pendency of suit filed by him for permanent injunction.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admitted, the complainant obtained the possession of the plot but later on he was dispossessed by the subsequent purchaser. In this view of the matter the complainant has a remedy by moving an application seeking possession in the suit by way of amendment in the plaint and in case of he successfully proved that the sale in his favour was prior to the sale in favour of Arif etc., he would definitely get the possession of the same through the Court.
5. Again the question as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted simultaneously under sections 420, P.P.C. as well as 468, P.P.C. is one of further inquiry and further the offence under sections 468/471, P.P.C. are non-cognizable whereas the offence under section 420, P.P.C. is compoundable. None of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause and question of forgery cannot be determined at this stage. Resultantly, the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within ten days.
H.B.T./G-22/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.