P L D 1992 Lahore 165 (PLP)

Accused is a Khatib of Mosque at Rawalpindi and is also Secretary General, Kisah Mohaz Hazara. He is charged for committing offences under sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 476, P.P.C. vide an F.I.R. registered with FIA at the instance of Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan for allegedly preparing a false copy of judgment of Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan given in Shariat Review Petition No.2‑R of 1989 decided on 17‑5‑1991. He was arrested on 7‑12‑1991 and since then is behind the bars. He applied for bail in the Sessions Court at Rawalpindi. Bail was denied to him on 17‑12‑1991, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. He has, thus, applied to this Court for the same relief. A certified copy of the judgment rendered in the above Shariat Review Petition was obtained from the office of the Supreme Court. * Since the judgment affected and gave benefit to inumerable persons, a large number of its photostat copies were prepared for wide circulation of the beneficiary class. Further, last page of the judgment which contained and summed up its conclusions was verbatim reproduced on a sheet of paper with a headnote showing it to be a decision of Shariat Review Petition No.2‑R of 1989, in case of Sardar Muhammad Yousaf etc. v. Government of Pakistan and at the bottom the reproduction was shown to bear the signatures of Honourable Judges of the Shariat Appellate Bench and a seal of Supreme Court with the certificate of its being a certified true copy of the judgment. At the end it was shown to have been issued by Oari Abdul Aziz, Secretary General, Kisan Mohaz, Hazara. Above reproduction was not issued from the office of the. Supreme Court and appeared to have been prepared by a private hand. Offending document was not a certified copy issued from the Supreme Court. The judgment of Shariat Appellate Bench is reported in PLD 1991 Supreme Court

760. As far the conclusions in the judgment, those had been correctly reproduced in the synopsis/summary. The difference was about the writing at the top of the offending document as also at its bottom and further that it was not part of a certified copy issued from the office of the Supreme Court. On behalf of the accused it is contended that the portion at the bottom was detached from a photostat of the certified copy of the judgment by Sultan Khan, as avowed antagonist of the tenantry and attached with the offending document for making it look offensive to the penal law and make the accused a scapegoat to wreak vengeance from him, for advocating the cause of a depressed class. It was further argued that there was neither element of deceit nor deception nor any mens rea in making the above document and the offence which on the face of stated facts in the FIR looked pretty serious, upon proper explanation would be found reduced in severity which may then, not justify further lodgement of the accused in jail for awaiting his trial. Learned AA.‑G. opposed bail to the accused and submitted that upon evidence collected in investigation, the accused is found to have forged a document purporting to be a certified copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court for its use as genuine and the facts as they are if taken as true, the acccused committed a serious offence and did not deserve leniency. Investigation is complete. Challan for the trial is likely to be submitted in the near future. Obviously, trial of the accused shall take some time but its duration cannot be predicted. There is no suggestion forthcoming from the prosecution that if enlarged on bail, accused would impede, obstruct or, frustrate fair trial against him or that he shall. not be available to the Court to receive its verdict. Without commenting on the nature of the offences punishments prescribed for them do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Withholding of bail as a measure of advance punishment may neither promote cause of justice nor object of law. On a prima facie reading of record, the document neither benefited the accused nor caused damage to the opposite party. Elements of fraud or dishonesty on part of the accused have yet to be discovered. Possibility of its eventually turning out to be, a fool‑hardy act without any mens rea in it could not be outrightly excluded. Having regard to the aforesaid and the ambient circumstances, in my view a case for bail to the accused was made out. I would, accordingly admit him to bail and direct his release subject to his furnishing bail‑bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner City/Duty Magistrate. Bail granted M.B.A./A‑68/1,