MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and related offences. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding the validity of a Nikahnama and the subsequent recommendation by the police to cancel the related First Information Report (F.I.R.). The Court observed that the Investigating Officer had found the case to be false, noting that witnesses to the Nikah had confirmed the marriage and that no suit for jactitation of marriage had been filed. Furthermore, the complainant had failed to cooperate with the investigation for several months. The Court held that the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and consequently granted bail. A key principle laid down is that statements made by a woman in such cases, which fluctuate depending on whether she is in the custody of her paramour or her parents, are unreliable and should not be accorded significant evidentiary weight by the Court.
- Does a case where the police have recommended cancellation of the FIR constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Should courts place reliance on statements made by a woman that fluctuate based on her current custody between her paramour and her parents?
- Is the absence of a suit for jactitation of marriage a relevant factor in determining the validity of a Nikahnama during bail proceedings?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 425, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, that in fact Mst. Rabia daughter of Muhammad Ashraf complainant had married with the petitioner with her own free will but later on Muhammad Ashraf complainant of the instant F.I.R. Also lodged another F.I.R. No,256 of 2002 on 25-4-2002 under sections 419, 425, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. And the allegation levelled in the said F.I.R. Against the petitioner was that he prepared the forged Nikah while Nikahnama was prepared on 5-4-2002. He submits that even case has been cancelled but so far no proceedings in this regard have been produced before the learned Magistrate by the police. He submits that case of the present petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
3. At this stage learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the State submits that the case F I.R. No.256 of 2002 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Has been recommended for cancellation. So, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I had earlier dealt with this matter in the application for bail before arrest. Mst. Rabia Bibi had appeared before me and she made a statement before the Court that her signatures were obtained forcibly on the Nikahnama and other papers by the petitioner. I allowed her to go wherever she wanted. She requested to go with her parents and said request was also allowed. Tie father of Mst. Rabia Bibi who is complainant of the instant F.I.R. Had also lodged a case F.I.R. No.256 of 2002 on 25-4-2002 about the occurrence which took place on 23-4-2002, alleging therein that Nikahnama between the petitioner and Mst. Rabia is forged one. This case was investigated by the Investigating Officer. I have gone through the last case diary of the Investigating Officer according to which witnesses of the Nikah have appeared before the Investigating Officer and they have admitted the Nikah contacted between petitioner and Mst. Rabia Bibi. No suit for jactitation of marriage has been filed till today. This case was found to be false and recommended for cancellation by the Investigating Officer. The complainant did not appear before the Investigating Officer for five months during the course of investigation nor any document was produced in this regard. Learned A.A.-G. Is right in submitting that the case of petitioner is of further enquiry, I agree with him. In this view of the matter this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.
5. I. May also noted here that in such--like cases when a girl is with her paramour/accused she make: statement in his favour and when she goes with her parents then she makes statement against her paramour and in favour of her parents. No reliance should be placed on such-like statements.