HABIB vs THE STATE
This matter involves two consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Habib, Allah Bukhsh, and Rab Nawaz, in connection with F.I.R. No. 47 of 2001 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners acted as witnesses to a fraudulent Nikahnama between Mst. Tasleem Anjum and the main accused, Muhammad Ifrahim, which the complainant claimed was fake. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offences and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation against the petitioners was complete, the main accused remained at large, and the petitioners had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that continued detention would serve no useful purpose, especially as the trial was unlikely to commence promptly.
- Are offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure of the police to arrest the main accused justify the grant of bail to co-accused persons?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation against them is complete and they have no prior criminal record?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Habib son of Ghulam Rasool and Allah Bukhsh son of Karim Bukhsh, petitioners, have sought their post-arrest bail through Criminal Miscellaneous No.1273/B of 2001 and Rab Nawaz son of Habib Khan, has sought his post-arrest bail through Criminal Miscellaneous No.1482/B of 2001. Since both these petitions arise out from the same F.I.R., therefore, the same are being disposed of through this single order.
2. A case was registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R. No.47 of 2001, dated 1-2-2001, under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Kot Mubarik, District D.G. Khan.
3. The precise allegation against the petitioners is that they were named as witnesses in a Nikahnama, which was allegedly performed between Mst. Tasleem Anjum and Muhammad Ifrahim. According to the said Nikahnama, the marriage had taken place on 8-11-1997 and was registered on the same day. The case of the prosecution is that the abovesaid Nikahnama is fake and bogus, therefore, the complainant, who is the father of Mst. Tasleem Anjum, reported the matter to the police.
4. Mst. Tasleem Anjum in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Recorded on 1-2-2001 also denied her marriage with Muhammad Ifrahim, the main accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The perusal of the police record shows that Mst. Tasleem Anjum daughter of the complainant has sworn an affidavit on 6-11-1997, wherein she had admitted her marriage with Muhammad Ifrahim. It has also been noticed that Nikah Khawan has already been granted pre-arrest bail. Section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable while none of the offences attract the prohibitory clause. The investigation qua the petitioners has been completed. The police has failed to arrest Muhammad Ifrahim the main accused so far, which clearly shows that there is no likelihood of early commencement of the trial. The petitioners were never involved in any criminal case previously. Their further detention in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
6. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to their tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. Twenty thousand each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.