Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Tariq ShamimNaveed Inayat Malik,Sh. Asghar Ali
2007 Y L R 488
2007 Y L R 488
[Lahore]
Before Tariq Shamim, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6454-B of 2006, decided on 19th September, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 467, 468 & 471---Bail before arrest, grant of---Only role assigned to accused was that of attesting agreement purported to have been forged by main accused, who had been granted pre-arrest bail---Since case of accused was on a better footing than that of main accused under the law of consistency, accused was also entitled to same concession---Mala fides of complainant for false involvement of accused, were obvious from the fact that a number of criminal cases were pending between the parties---No recovery had to be effected from accused and investigation being complete, challan had been submitted in the Court---Evidence in the case was documentary in nature and there was no likelihood of accused's tampering with the same---Offence under S.467, P.P.C. was prima facie not attracted to case of accused and other offences mentioned in F.I.R. were punishable with maximum sentence of 7 years and were not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Enough evidence was not available on the record to connect accused with the commission of crime alleged against him---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Naveed Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
Sh. Asghar Ali for the State with Muhammad Shakoor S.-I.
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through the petition the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.433 of 2006 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused is alleged to have prepared forged agreement and on the basis of the said document obtained a stay order from the civil Court against the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the principal accused namely Muhammad Saleem Raza has already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned lower Court on 21-6-2006 and the case of the petitioner being on even a better footing he was also entitled to the . same concession; that the only allegation against the petitioner was that of attesting of the said documents as a witness and no benefit had been derived by him there-from; that there is a long chain of litigation criminal as well as civil pending between the accused side and the complainant party on account of which the petitioner had been falsely involved in the case. No recovery had to be effected from the petitioner and since the investigation was complete, as such the petitioner was not required by the police; that the evidence in the case was all documentary in nature, hence, if released on bail there was no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence; that the provisions of section 467, P.P.C. were not applicable to the petitioner and the maximum sentence provided under the other penal provisions was 7 years, hence the case of the petitioner was not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such the' case against the petitioner being one of further enquiry he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the only role assigned to the petitioner is that of attesting the agreement purported to have been forged by the main accused Muhammad Saleem Raza who although being the main accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21-6-2006. Since the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than the aforementioned Muhammad Saleem Raza, as such, under the law of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession; that mala fides of the complainant for false involvement of the petitioner are obvious from the fact that a number of criminal cases are pending between the parties. Further, no recovery has to be effected from the petitioner and the investigation being complete, challan has been submitted in the Court. The evidence in the case is documentary in nature and there is no likelihood of the petitioner's tampering with the same. The offence under section 467, P.P.C. is prima facie not attracted to the case of the petitioner and the other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable with maximum sentence of 7 years, hence, the same are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The record reveals that presently there is not enough evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crimes alleged against him.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-8-2006 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-566/L Bail confirmed.