MUHAMMAD AZEEM Versus State
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the dispute originated from a civil transaction regarding the sale of land and that a civil suit was pending prior to the criminal registration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it subject to surety bonds. The court laid down the principle that where a dispute is primarily civil in nature, previous civil litigation has been initiated, and offences like forgery require further inquiry under the facts and circumstances, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether bail should be granted when a criminal case is registered after the initiation of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
- Does an allegation involving sections requiring further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no recovery is to be made from him and he has been incarcerated without progress in recording witness testimony?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 820, under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. at Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad on 6-12-2010.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that petitioner while acting as a general attorney, sold the land, subject matter of the F.I.R. vide the agreement dated 10-8-2007 to the complainant but subsequently he sold the same land to Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Saleem.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that even as per the prosecution story given in the F.I.R., there is no allegation of forgery; that the dispute is primarily civil in nature and that is why the complainant in the first instance tiled a civil suit on 3-9-2010 with regard to the same subject matter and notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit, lie brought the dispute in criminal domain by getting the afore-referred case registered. Adds that he is behind the bars ever since his arrest on 8-1-2011 and not a single witness has been recorded so far.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Law Officer opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R.; that he committed fraud; that though there is no forgery yet his conduct and his past do not make out a case for bail.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Law Officer at some length, we find that admittedly the complainant filed a civil suit two months prior to the registration of the instant case qua the same subject matter. There is no allegation of forgery and nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner. Sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable whereas sections 467 and 468 pertains to forgery, which issue would require further inquiry so far as petitioner's guilt is concerned. In the afore-referred circumstances, petitioner has made out a case for bail. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, he is directed to be released on bail.
Crl. M. A. No. 154-L/2011
6. Subject to all just exceptions and for reasons given in the application, this is allowed.
M.H./M-49/SC Bail allowed.