MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail was filed by the petitioners in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 471, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar, Depalpur. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had verified the vendees in an alleged forged agreement to sell regarding land owned by the complainant. The core legal issue was whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed where the original document in question had not been recovered for expert comparison and the investigating officer had declared the petitioners innocent. The Lahore High Court held that unless the disputed document is secured and the petitioners' signatures are compared and verified by experts, they cannot be held criminally responsible at this stage. Additionally, the petitioners were declared innocent during investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, reserving the complainant's right to seek bail cancellation if subsequent forensic report goes against the petitioners.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the alleged forged agreement has not been recovered or forensically verified?
- Whether a finding of innocence by a investigating officer during police investigation brings a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC?
- Can a complainant move for cancellation of pre-arrest bail if subsequent forensic analysis of a disputed document implicates the accused?
- 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
' The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,402, dated 26-7-2001 under sections 471/420/468, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar; Depalpur, District Okara.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mst. Mumtaz Begum is owner of land, subject-matter of the instant F.I.R. She never sold the said land in favour of Khushi Muhammad and others vide alleged agreement to sell dated 15-1-2001. She came to know about the agreement dated 15-1-2001 when Khushi Muhammad filed a suit for specific performance against her on 7-4-2001. Hence she lodged the F.I.R. Referred above.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had verified vendees of the said agreement.
4. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail which relief has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur. Hence the instant petition.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that till today the alleged agreement dated 15- 1-2001 has not been recovered, that the petitioners have been simply assigned the role of verifying the vendees of the said agreement, that as per investigation so far conducted the petitioners have been found innocent by the D.S.P. Depalpur vide case Diary No,15, dated 11-9-2001. He thus submits that case of the petitioners stands covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And they are entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
However, learned counsel for the State submits that as per investigation referred above the petitioners have been found innocent by the D.S.P., Depalpur.
8. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had verified the vendees of agreement to sell dated 15-1-2001. Admittedly the original agreement has not so far been procured by the Investigating Agency as the same has not been produced by the complainant and has, also not been even produced by accused of the instant F.I.R. In the Civil Court where they have sought specific performance of the said agreement. Unless and until the agreement dated 15-1-2001 is secured and the alleged signatures of the petitioners are got compared with the signatures appearing on the said agreement, they cannot be held responsible for the offence charged against them. This being the factual position, the petition is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 16-8-2001 is confirmed. However, this order shall not debar the complainant seeking its cancellation if after securing the document and getting the signatures of the petitioners compared with their signatures appearing on the said document, the report goes against them (petitioners).
9. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Interim pre-arrest .