ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Allah Bakhsh, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 255 registered under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pacca Laran. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was merely a witness to an allegedly forged Nikah Nama and not the principal accused, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he was not the principal accused, the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and he had no prior criminal record. The court established the key principle that in such cases, the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception.
- Whether an accused who is a witness to a forged document rather than the principal accused is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an offense falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail as a rule?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when there is no record of previous criminal activity?
- 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 an 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.