livelawpk.com - FIRs cannot be registered for Forged Bail Bonds, ---

FIRs cannot be registered for Forged Bail Bonds, as such cases fall u/s 195 Cr.P.C., requiring Court-Initiated Proceedings --- Lahore High Court, Lahore granted Pre-Arrest Bail to Petitioners

1 month, 1 week
58

FIRs cannot be registered for Forged Bail Bonds, as such cases fall u/s 195 Cr.P.C., requiring Court-Initiated Proceedings --- Lahore High Court, Lahore granted Pre-Arrest Bail to Petitioners

Islamabad 21-02-2025: In a landmark ruling, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has declared that an FIR cannot be registered for forgery of bail bonds, as such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, in [Crl. Misc. No. 77218-B/2024], reinforcing the principle that only the concerned Court can take cognizance of such offenses.

The Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in [FIR No. 2360], registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC at Police Station Civil Line, Faisalabad. The allegation was that the Petitioners had furnished forged bail bonds in a private complaint titled “Muhammad Sohail Mukhtar Vs. Mst. Tabinda, etc”.

The Petitioners’ counsel argued that their clients had not prepared the bail bonds and, if forged, the trial Court could reject and substitute them rather than registering an FIR. It was further contended that forgery in Court documents is covered under Section 205 PPC, which is a non-cognizable offense, requiring action under Section 195 Cr.P.C. instead of an FIR.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq ruled that forgery of Court documents, including bail bonds, is regulated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., which bars police from registering an FIR. Instead, only the trial Court where the alleged forgery occurred can initiate legal proceedings.

Relying on Supreme Court of Pakistan and Lahore High Court precedents, the judge emphasized that:

Forgery committed in Court proceedings must be handled by the Court itself under Section 476 Cr.P.C.
Bail bonds are considered “documents given in evidence”, making them subject to the procedural safeguards of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
No private party or police authority has the jurisdiction to interfere in such matters.

The ruling cited various legal precedents, including:

GUL KHAN Vs. The STATE (2015 P Cr. L J 126): Confirming that only the trial Court can take cognizance of forgery cases related to Court documents.
Ch. FEROZE DIN Vs. DR. K. M. MUNIR (1970 SCMR 10): Holding that complaints regarding forged Court documents must originate from the Court itself.
Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005 AIR SC 2119 - Indian Supreme Court): Drawing a distinction between forged private documents and forged Court documents.
(PLD 2005 Lahore 386): Where an FIR for forged bail bonds was quashed for violating Section 195 Cr.P.C.

This ruling sets a significant precedent by reinforcing that forgery of Court documents cannot be prosecuted through an FIR. It also safeguards the judicial process from external interference, ensuring that Courts retain full control over proceedings involving alleged document forgery.

The ruling further dismissed the prosecution’s argument that FIR registration would help combat “toutism” (fraudulent legal practices in Courts). Instead, the Court noted that Section 59 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 already provides a mechanism for dealing with touts and legal frauds.

Granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, the Lahore High Court found no direct evidence linking them to the forgery. The Court emphasized the principle of “further inquiry” under bail jurisprudence, citing Supreme Court rulings, including: