SHAFQAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two criminal miscellaneous applications seeking post-arrest bail filed on behalf of Shafqat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf Sialvi, who are accused in case FIR No. 170/99 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of fraud, forgery, and impersonation involving valuable property, and whether a second bail petition on the same grounds is competent. The Lahore High Court dismissed both bail applications, holding that specific allegations of grave fraud and forgery existed, the petitioners were found guilty during investigation, and their non-cooperative attitude was delaying the trial. The court laid down the principle that in cases of fraud and forgery, direct evidence is rarely collected, and where substantive allegations and prima facie material connect the accused to the crime, bail ought to be refused.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when facing serious allegations of fraud and forgery involving valuable property?
- Is a second bail petition on the same grounds competent when no new material justifying release on bail is produced?
- Does the non-cooperative attitude of the accused delaying the trial affect their entitlement to bail?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHARY, J.-- This order will dispose of two bail applications i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 4617-B/2000 on behalf of Shafqat Ali and Crl. Misc. No. 4899-B of 2000 behalf of Muhammad Ashraf Sialvi. Both the petitioners are required as accused in case FIR No. 170/99, dated 5.9.2000 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, PPC registered with P.S., Kotwali, Faisalabad.
2. It is argued Ion behalf of Muhammad Ashraf Sialvi petitioner that his name does not figure in the FIR which was lodged at the instance of Irshad Hassan Shah, Registrar (Urban)/MIC, Faisalabad. It is further argued that there is no legal evidence collected against him so far, by the Investigating Agency.
3. As regards Shafqat Ali petitioner, it is contended that his name also does not figure in the FIR which must have, been lodged after holding some enquiry by the Registrar (U)/MIC, therefore, the case against both the petitioners is open to further enquiry and at present there is no material on the file entitling them to the concession of bail.
4. Bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the Prosecution. About Muhammad Ashraf Sialvi it is alleged that he was posted as Naib Qasid but he acted as {{Urdu Text}} He obtained thumb impressions of fictitious persons, not once but on three differentiate deeds. It is further submitted that on account of his non co-operation trial is not being permitted to proceed because he has not engaged his counsel so far .
5. About Shafqat Ali petitioner, it is alleged that he impersonated himself as Mukhtar, Advocate, whereas, he is working as clerk of a local lawyer and during investigation, evidence was, collected that he purchased the stamp papers which was subsequently used as sale-deed to deprive the owners of land measuring three kanal, two mar las and about three sursai. The market value of the said land is about 90,00,000/- lac rupees where's according to the Notification by. The Registrar, it has been assessed as Rs. 10,00,000/-.''Be that as it may, it is a quite substantive amount regarding which the fraud has. Been committed.
6. It has been noted in the cases of fraud and forgery that direct evidence is rarely collected, and acts and deeds performed by the accused persons. The fact remains that forgery was committed.
Both the petitioners have been found as guilty during the investigation. Challan has been submitted in Court but unfortunately the challan is not being permitted, to - proceed on one pretext or the other, therefore, despite-the challan having been submitted in Court since 24.3.2000 yet no progress could be made on. Account of non co-operative attitude of the accused persons.
As the challan has been submitted in Court, today is fixed as date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. There are specific allegations against the accused petitioners. I have not been able to persuade myself to admit them to bail. Apart from that earlier bail application of Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner had been moved and withdrawn on 11.4.2000. No material justifying his release on bail has been produced. Even in view of the Zubair's case (PLD 1986 S.C. 173) this second bail petition on the same grounds is not competent.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, both the petitions are dismissed.