IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
  
 
Criminal Petition NO.12 of 2014 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23.12.2013 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Crl.Misc. No.12290/B/2013) 
 
Muhammad Ramzan 
… Petitioner 
versus 
 
The State  
Muhammad Hussain 
… Respondents 
 
For the petitioner: 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Gondal, ASC 
 
A/w petitioner in person 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl. PG, Pb. 
 
A/w Qaiser Riaz, IO 
 
For respondent No.2: 
 
Mr. Basharatullah Khan, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.02.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
    
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— This petition for leave to 
appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge in 
Chamber of the Lahore High Court dated 23.12.2013 refusing pre-
arrest bail of the accused petitioner in case FIR No.1145/2012 
registered for crimes under sections 420, 468, 471 PPC on 21.11.2012 
by Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad.  
2. 
  
It is alleged in the FIR by Muhammad Hussain respondent 
that a forged letter was manipulated ostensibly shown to have been 
written by the Director Excise & Taxation bearing No.ADM-111-39 
Crl.P.12 of 2014 
2 
dated 30.08.2008 containing an order of demotion of the complainant 
from the post of Excise Inspector to that of Clerk. During departmental 
inquiry this letter was found to be forged and tampered one.  
3. 
  
It is also alleged in the FIR that complainant while 
attached to Circle Islam Nagar, Block No.5 of the Excise Department 
discovered that one Babar Naseem Junior Clerk with the connivance 
and assistance of Excise Inspector Iftikhar Hussain Bhatti replaced the 
sheets of the relevant register of property tax causing loss in million 
rupees to the public exchequer and it was on his pointation that they 
both were proceeded against departmentally on such allegations, thus, 
their services were terminated and recovery of embezzled amount  
was also ordered by the competent authority.  
4. 
  
It was on that account that after having developed 
personal grudge against the complainant, they hired the services of 
present petitioner to terrorize and harass the respondent and in the 
preparation of the above forged office order the present petitioner was 
equal partner, which was proved false and forged in the departmental 
inquiry.  
5. 
  
It was contended by the learned ASC for the petitioner that 
co-accused equally charged with the same and similar allegations have 
been granted bail, both on merits and on the principle that offences 
under sections 468, 470 are non-compoundable while offences under 
sections 420 is punishable with 7 years RI. Thus, none of the offences 
fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr.PC. Hence, not only on 
the principle of consistency petitioner is entitled to grant of pre-arrest 
bail but also because as has been laid down by this Court in the case 
of Tariq Bashir v. The State(PLD 1995 SC 34) that grant of bail in the 
Crl.P.12 of 2014 
3 
offences not punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years shall 
be a rule and refusal shall be an exception.  
6. 
   
Learned ASC for the complainant/respondent and the 
Prosecutor General Punjab opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail on two-
fold grounds that co-accused was granted post arrest bail and for 
grant of pre-arrest bail element of malafide is to be essentially 
established and because his pre-arrest bail was not confirmed by the 
learned Trial Judge, he escaped from there without surrendering to the 
lawful custody of the police or the Court, hence he is not entitled to 
such extra-ordinary relief.  
7. 
  
We have attended to the record available before us and 
after hearing the submissions of both the sides we are of the view that 
there are many omissions in the case committed by the investigating 
agencies, however, at this stage we will not discuss those points in 
detail, lest it prejudice the case of one or the other side. However, 
suffice it to say that the co-accused to whom the same and similar role 
was attributed in the transaction, has been granted post arrest bail 
and because the charge against both the accused is of indivisible 
nature and because the two officers who were removed from service 
during departmental inquiry have been reinstated into service, as was 
stated at the bar, thus, in the circumstances, the petitioner would 
certainly be entitled to grant of post arrest bail, if his pre-arrest bail is 
not confirmed. Such exercise would neither improve the case of the 
prosecution in any manner during investigation nor would serve the 
ends of justice because the petitioner too would be entitled to post-
arrest bail on the principle of consistency, fully attracted in his case.  
Crl.P.12 of 2014 
4 
8. 
  
Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and is 
allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 
16.01.2014 is accordingly confirmed on the same surety bonds.  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th February, 2014 
Nisar/* 
 
 
 
 
Not Approved For Reporting