PCRLJ 2017

2017 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. IRFAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2016-August-1
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Ch. IRFAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (Ch. IRFAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ajmal Adil for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 497 & 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document

Bail, confirmation of

Further inquiry

Complainant alleged that accused persons with their co-accused prepared forged documents and tried to occupy the disputed property

Fingerprint Examination Report reflected that in fact complainant had himself thumb marked those documents

Complainant was not the affected party of the alleged crime but the real owners who could lodge FIR against culprits in the crime; no application was moved on behalf of real owners regarding preparation of forged documents

Investigating officer conceded that he failed to associate real owners of property in the investigation

Forged documents were allegedly prepared by accused and complainant; in absence of statements of real owners of disputed property, police failed to conclude the investigation

Prima facie, no direct evidence was available on record against accused persons regarding their involvement in commission of alleged forgery

Mens rea, if any, could validly be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.

Through this petition, Ch. Irfan Ali and Sohail Anjum petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.112/16, dated 02.03.2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. As per FIR there is general allegation against the petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Razzaq that they with their common intention allegedly prepared forged documents i.e. agreement to sell regarding the disputed property in favour of petitioner Ch. Irfan Ali and some receipts of payment and on the basis of the same tried to occupy the disputed property.

4. Order sheet reflects that on 13.06.2016, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Erum Sajad Gull (not available because of summer vacations) had directed the police official present in Court, to obtain thumb impressions of the complainant and verify the documents, in compliance thereof the alleged agreement to sell and three original receipts were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency along with specimen of thumb impressions of the complainant Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz and in this regard Latent Fingerprint Examination Report dated 15.07.2016 is available on police file that reflects that in fact complainant had himself thumb marked those documents and the result and conclusion of the Fingerprint Experts is as under:- "After complete examination, one questioned thumb impression marked as Exp/B-I on original "Iqrar Nama Baey" No. 45584 dated: 02-05-2015 (Item No. 1.1.) and two questioned thumb impressions marked as Exp-B-/II and Exp-B/III on two original "Raseed Wasooli Raqam" dated: 06-07-2015 and 29-10-2015 (Item No. 1.2) were individualized as the left thumb of Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz son of Mian Khairati (Item No.1.3)." When confronted, learned Law Officer confirms that complainant is not the affected party in the alleged crime because Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad are real owners of the property mentioned in the FIR who have been affected with the alleged forgery, if any and at the most they could lodge an FIR against the culprits in the crime. He further confirms, that no application has ever been moved on behalf of said Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad regarding preparation of any forged documents, by the petitioners. Ghulam Qadir ASI/Investigating Officer present with record frankly concedes that he remained fail to associate said Muhammad Shafique and Nazir Ahmad real owners of the property in the investigation. Learned Law Officer also points out that the alleged forged documents have been prepared between the petitioners and the complainant and in absence of statements of original owners of the disputed property, police remained fail to conclude the investigation. Prima facie, there is no direct evidence available on record against the petitioners regarding their involvement in commission of the alleged forgery and in absence of any statement of original owners of the property, the mens rea, if any, against the petitioners can validly be determined by the learned trial court after recording of some evidence by the learned trial court and I do not find any justifiable reason to send them behind the bars. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2016, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from today.

5. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. It is further observed that after record statement of the original owners of the disputed property, in case any cogent evidence comes on record regarding the culpability of the petitioners in this case, the State or any affected party can move an application for cancellation of their bail, if so advised. WA/I-6/L Bail confirmed.