BASHIR AHMED Versus THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, cancelling the post-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, in case F.I.R. No. 101 dated 28-6-2002, registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Choubara, District Layyah. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given an inordinate delay of nine years in lodging the First Information Report and the nature of the allegations involving the forgery of a Nikahnama. The Lahore High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., where bail is the rule and refusal the exception. The petition was consequently accepted and bail granted.
- Does a nine-year delay in lodging an FIR for forgery constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the primary beneficiary of an alleged forged Nikahnama is a co-accused rather than the petitioner?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Bashir Ahmad, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 101, dated 28-6-2002 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Choubara. District Layyah.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that Naseer Ahmad, his brother on 26-12-1993 in connivance with him and others has forged Nikahnama between him and Mst. Surriya Bibi, the wife of -the complainant.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Mst..Surriya Bibi is owner of 92 Kanals of land. They had intended to grab the same.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in with mala fide intention; that there is 9 years inordinate delay in lodging the. F.I.R, that he is not principal accused; that there is mere allegation against him is that his brother Naseer Ahmad with his and others connivance has forged the said Nikahnama that he is behind the bars for the last about two months; that he was rightly granted bail by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate but the same was erroneously cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide his order, dated 15-8-2002; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he in connivance with his brother Naseer Ahmad has forged the said Nikahnama; that his co accused is still at large; and that there is likelihood of his abscondence in case he is released on bail.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is almost nine years delay in lodging the F.I.R. The allegation against him as per F.I.R. is that his brother Naseer Ahmad with his and that of his co-accused's connivance has forged the aforesaid Nikahnama. Thus, the beneficiary of the said Nikahnama may be his brother Naseer Ahmad and not he. Se, the question that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence or not, needs consideration. The same is to be seen at the trial. His case, thus is covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 2 months.
8. Even otherwise, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.
9. No exceptional circumstance has been put forth to justify the refusal.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate/trial .Court.
H.B.T./B-128/L Bail granted.