1. {{PAGE No. 80 IS MISSING}} Released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right."8. It is submitted by Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is alleged to have forged or to have been parly to forgery of power of Attorney alleged to have been executed bv said Umer Qureshi in favour of the applicant authorising him to sell or alienate the aforesaid plot in accordance with the terms of the said power of Attorny, It is submitted that the power of Attorney is not a valuable security and further more Scc.466 PPC. Specifically deals with punishment for forgery of Power of Attorney for which punishment is also six years. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Abdul Malek vs. Mozammcl Huque & Others reported in 22 D.L.R. (1970) P.708, In that reported case a learned Single Judge of the earstwhile High Court of East Pakistan has held " A Vakalatnama is a document under which a person empowers his lawyer to do certain things on his behalf. Such a document does not on the face of it purport to create, extend, transfer restrict or extinguish a right and as such, it cannot be deemed to be a "valuable security" within the meaning of section 30 of the Pakistan Penal Code." It is submitted by Mr. Muhammad Hayat junejo that Vakalatnama is also a Power of Attorney and it is not a 'valuable security'.9. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the complainant has urged that under the Power of Attorney the applicant has been empowered to sell transfer, gift, lease or alienate the plot in question and bv executing gift lease or Sale-Deed and present the same for registration which impliedly authorised him also to receive the sale price or the lease money and thus this document confers upon the applicant certain right which are recognised by law and as such it would be a document confcring legal rights upon the applicant and would, therefore, be a valuable security within the meaning of Section- 30 PPC.10. The term legal rights' was considered in the case of Daniel Hailey Walcott and another vs. State (A.I.R. 1%8 Madras 349). The question involved in that case was 'Whether a passport was a "valuable security" within the meaning of Section- 30 PPC. While discussing the meaning of term" legal rights" it was observed as under: -"The expression 'Legal Right' used in the definition of valuable security is not defined and is difficuIt concept.From the statements of eminent jurists about the concept of ' legal right' the following principles can be deduced broadly to understand what a ' legal right' is; (1)
2. 'Legal right in its strict sense is one which is an asscrtable claim,enforeable before Courts and administrative agencies; (2) In its wider sense, a legal right has to be understood as any advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law; (3) There are legal rights, which arc not enforceable though recognized by the law, (4) There arc rights recognised by the International Court, granted by internalifmal law'; but not enforceable and (5) A legal right is a capacity of asserting a secured interest rather than a claim that could be asserted in the Courts.The test of enforceability, (hough it may be a nom inal one, is not the only test for determining a legal right. A legal right may be one recognised by rule of law, cither by Municipal law or Internation Law, without the capacity of being enforced. A legal right may be asserted even beforeadmittedly Mr. Ishtiaq Ali was also the Advocate of the present applicant Jawaid Akhtar.17. Further more the application has been moved by the applicant for bail before arrest on the principles on which bail before arrest can be granted have been enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Murad Khan vs. Fazal-e-Subhan & another (P.L.D 1983S.C. 82). Their Lordships have observed that "the forgoing resume of the case-law since 1949 and the recent trend of authority would show that notwithstanding varied facts, this Court always thought it necessary to look for such circumstances which would furnish the assumption that the police was motivated on political considerations or other uIterior reasons, before granting pre-arrest bail."18. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Juncjo has, however relied upon the case of Jamaluddin vs. The State ( 1985 SCR 1949) In that case their Lordships observed that "grant or refusal of bail depended on the facts of each case and no hard and last rules could be laid down therein." Bail was granted in that case, as the accused had alleged before the trial Court that his womenfolk were illegally taken to Police Station and that the Police was bent upon insuIting, humiliating and harassing the accused as was done by them in collusion with the complainant party in the past.19. Apparently the facts of the case of Jamaluddin appear to be distinguishable from the instant case, as in the instant case, even, in this Court the applicant has not alleged any uIterior motive on the part of the police. Only in para- 12 it is alleged that the fact and circumstances of this case clearly show that the parties are involved in civil litigations and that the applicant is being dragged in a criminal Court for uIterior motives, and the said proceedings are malafide, and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Malafide has been alleged against the complainant, but there is no such allegation against the Police.20. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo has also relied upon the case of Raza Muhammad Sial vs. The State (1988 S.C.M.R. 1223) wherein their Lordships had granted pre-arrest bail where the petitioner had asserted that he was falsely implicated due to departmental intrigue and conspiracy. Their Lordships held that "no burden was cast on accused at bail stage in such proceedings to prove the allegations."21. No doubt the burden is not upon the applicant to prove the allegations of malafide, but as held by their Lordships in the aforesaid case of Murad Khan it is necessary for the Court to look for such circumstances which would furnish the assumption that the police was motivated on political considerations or other uIterior motives or reasons. There is no such circumstances present in this case. The mere fact that civil litigation is pending concerning the plot in respect of which the documents are alleged to have been forged, cannot primafacie be considered to furnish uIterior motive to the complainant or Police.22. Under the circumslancs, in my opinion, no case for prearrest bail is made out either on merits of the case or on the ground that the applicant would be harassed or humiliated by the Police due to uIterior motive. I accordingly reject the bail application