NAZIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and corruption, specifically regarding the fraudulent entry of a person's name in land mutations as the heir of a deceased individual. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged tampering of official records, which were under the custody of government staff, warranted continued incarceration pending trial. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to specify the time and date of the alleged tampering and that the records were held in an official Record Room, making the petitioner’s direct culpability a matter requiring further inquiry. Holding that the case fell under the purview of further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution’s case regarding the commission of an offense—particularly one involving tampering with official records—remains ambiguous or lacks specificity, and the accused is a previous non-convict who has already spent significant time in custody, the case qualifies for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the lack of specificity regarding the time and date of an alleged offense in an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the alleged offense involves tampering with official records that were not in the accused's direct custody?
- Does the alleged abscondence of an accused bar the grant of bail if the case is otherwise found to be one of further inquiry?
- 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 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Nazir Ahmad, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.43, dated 22-6-2000, under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that Nazir Ahmad (petitioner) and Mst. Naziran Bibi in connivance with the Staff of Record Room, D.C. Office, Multan with mala fide intention have got entered the name of Sikandar in Mutations Nos.36 and 69 as the son of Meero deceased while Gauhar was his only legal heir.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the record, if at all, has been tampered with was in the Record Room and he could not have the access thereto and so the question of his having done so needs further inquiry into his guilt; that time and date of the occurrence is not mentioned in. the F.I.R.; that he had no knowledge of the case against him and he has not at all absconded; that his co accused Mazhar Abbas has been allowed bail by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan on 13-6-2001 and his case is not worst than that of him; that the civil suit was filed by him and his co-accused Mst. Naziran Bibi and her brother Bashir claiming themselves to be the heirs of the deceased Meero and so owners of the land in dispute and in the same the stay order was issued in their favour; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 8 months and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he and his co-accused Mst. Naziran Bibi in connivance with the concerned staff of the Record Room have got entered the name of Sikandar in the aforesaid two mutations as the son of the deceased Meero while their predecessor-in-interest Gauhar was his only legal heir and so they have tried to get unlawful gain out of the same; and that he had remained absconder for quite some time.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. As mentioned above that the allegation against him and his co accused Mst. Naziran Bibi as per the F.I.R. is that they in connivance with the concerned staff of the Record Room D.C. Office, Multan have got entered the name of Sikandar as the son of the Meero deceased in aforesaid Mutations Nos.36 and 69. It has not been disputed by the prosecution's side that such record was in the official Record Room. The date and time of such tampering with that record has not been mentioned A in the F. I. R. The alleged tampered record when was in the custody of the staff of the Record Room, then the question of his guilt in the matter needs serious consideration. In view of this position, I am certain that his (petitioner) case certainly requires further inquiry into his guilt and the same therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. His case when has been found to be one of further inquiry and so in such circumstances his alleged abscondence will not come in his way to the grant of bail to him particularly when it is the contention from his side that he did not know the registration of the case against him. He is state to be behind the bars for the last about 8 months and previous non-convict. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./N-323/L Bail granted.