MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and others vs AMANAT ALI and another
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court setting aside the pre-arrest bail granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving offenses under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction after scanning the record, finding that the allegations were of a serious nature, a challan had been submitted, and the petitioners had failed to surrender before the police. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined, laying down that pre-arrest bail requires specific extraordinary grounds distinguishable from post-arrest bail, and an appellate court will not interfere with a High Court's discretionary cancellation of pre-arrest bail unless the impugned order is perverse, capricious, or arbitrary.
- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside pre-arrest bail when the allegations against the accused are of a serious nature and a challan has been submitted?
- What is the distinction between the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in cancelling pre-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 9.3.2004, passed in Criminal Misc. No, 164-CB of 2003, whereby the concession of pre-arrest bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, vide order dated 19.7.2003, was set aside.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-Amanat Ali is a Zamindar and owner of 20 Kanals of land. Petitioner-Muhammad Irshad used to visit him, who is residing in Chak No, 111/12-L, and in connivance with Mumtaz Ahmad Stamp Vendor of Chichawatni he prepared a forged agreement to sale which was signed by Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sharif as witnesses. The aforesaid agreement was prepared for sale of the above-mentioned land for a consideration of Rs, 500,000/-, out of which Rs, 50,000/- were shown to be already given as loan and Rs, 400,000/- were paid as earnest money. The complainant further stated that as he has no son, the forged documents were prepared to garb his property. Therefore, a case was registered under Sections 420/468/471 PPC against the accused-petitioners.
3. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chichawatni vide order dated 19.7.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail of the petitioners, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned order herein. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned ASC for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable. He further submitted that prima facie no case was made out against the petitioners.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on the file. The petitioners were declined pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court on 9.3.2004, but they never surrendered before the concerned police. The record further shows that after formal investigation police submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court where the trial is yet to commence. Prima facie the allegations against the petitioners are of serious nature. In our considered view, they are not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. The criteria for grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused person is quite different to that after arrest. The learned High Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction after scanning the record.
The impugned order is neither perverse, nor capricious or arbitrary, which does not call for interference by this Court. We are of the considered view that, prima facie the petitioners are guilty of the offence as charge-sheet has been filed against them.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
7. The petitioners are present in the Court. They are taken into custody with the direction that their custody be handed over to the S.H.O. Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, under FIR No, 167/2003.
8. The above are the reasons for our short order of today.