MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus State
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 143 dated 6-6-2005 registered at Police Station Sabz Peer under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have signed as a marginal witness on a forged rent agreement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances and material available on record. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner had committed the charged offense, particularly noting omissions in a related civil suit and the Notary Public's denial of attestation. The key principle laid down is that where prima facie material indicates the fabrication of a document to defeat property rights and the attestation is disputed, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense?
- Does the omission of a tenancy claim in a prior civil suit constitute prima facie evidence of a fabricated agreement?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified for a marginal witness of an allegedly forged rent agreement under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--- Ch. Muhammad Munir, petitioner, through this petition has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.143, dated 6-6-2005 registered at Police Station, Sabz Peer under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Allegedly, Rashid Ahmad, co-accused, prepared a forged rent agreement in favour of Arshad Ali, co-accused on 4-9-2003. The petitioner is stated to have affixed his signature as a marginal witness. It purports to have been drawn by Muhammad Anwar, Clerk of Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate, which also bears seal and signature of a Notary Public. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the shop from Sajjad Hussain through registered sale-deed, dated 25-6-2004. Said Sajjad Hussain had rented out the shop to Arshad Ali on 29-1-2004 for a sum of Rs.1600 per month. The case of Noor Ahmad, complainant, is that the accused fabricated the alleged agreement in back date in order to defeat his rights.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties. at length. A perusal of record produced before me shows that Sajjad Hussain son of Fazal Hussain had purchased a shop through registered deed, dated 7-6-1990. Whereas Noor Ahmad, complainant, had purchased the said shop from Sajjad Hussain through a deed registered on 25-6-2004. Prior to that Sajjad Hussain and Arshad Ali had executed a rent note dated 29-1-2004. In view of this Rent Note Arshad Ali son of Muhammad Shabbir was in occupation of the shop as tenant of Sajjad Hussain on 10-3-2004. Brother of present petitioner, Rashid Ahmad, co-accused filed a suit for possession against Sajjad Hussain on the basis of an Arbitration Award, which had been made rule of the Court on 29-10-2001. During the pendency of the suit filed by Rashid the property in dispute was purchased by Noor Ahmad, complainant, which is still pending adjudication in a civil Court. It is of marked importance that Rashid Ahmad in his civil suit instituted on 10-3-2004 had prayed for actual physical possession of the disputed shop. The prayer for possession made by Rashid Ahmad clearly shows that he was neither directly nor indirectly (through Arshad Ali) was shown in possession of the disputed shop. He had made no mention that Arshad Ali had been occupying the disputed shop as a tenant under agreement, dated 4-9-2003. This omission on the part of Rashid Ahmad, prima facie, shows that agreement dated 4-9-2003 was prepared subsequently. I would not like to dilate much upon this point. During the investigation of the case the Notary Public has declined to have attested the alleged agreement. In the circumstances of case there are reasons to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged. No ground for pre-arrest bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
H.B.T./M-320/L Bail refused.