ALLAH BAKHSH Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Allah Bakhsh, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner, who acted as a witness to an allegedly forged Nikah Nama, was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was not the principal accused in the case and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any prior criminal record for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing the established legal principle that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is the exception. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the role of a witness to an allegedly forged document constitute a ground for denying post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Allah Bakhsh son of Allah Bachaya petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.255, registered at Police Station Pacca Laran, on 15-8-2003, for offences under sections 419/420/468/471, P. P. C.
2. Briefly the relevant facts, as, given 'in the F.I.R., are that co accused Khadim Hussain forged a Nikah Nama, wherein the complainant was shown to be his wife and produced Nikah Nama before the Court. The petitioner was one of the witnesses in the said Nikah Nama.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the petitioner has been sent to the judicial lock-up; that the petitioner is not a principal accused that the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was previously involved in any criminal activity. In such-like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal ate exception, therefore, relying upon the case of Muhammad Amir v. The State 1973 PCr.LJ 205, I admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of, the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-1010/L Bail granted.