Case Law, Bail 420,467,468,471

Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 1392 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : RIZWAN IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Pre-arrest bail , grant of--- Accused had allegedly forged an agreement to sell in respect of a plot--­F.I.R. had been registered against the accused after about seven years and that too at a police station lacking territorial jurisdiction over the property in dispute---Divergence of opinion exited between the State counsel and the counsel for the complainant over the reports of Handwriting Experts---Case against accused, thus, called for further inquiry---Ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 2071 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA
Side Opponent : State
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---F.I.R. showed that predecessor-in-­interest of accused persons had sold a piece of land to complainant through a registered sale-deed and had delivered its possession to complainant---Subsequently a dispute arose between vendee/complainant and Evacuee Trust Property Department which ended after 26 years---Accused neither became party to the proceedings nor did they produce any document---Accused were alleged to have prepared a forged registered sale deed showing alienation of disputed land in favour of their relative and that on the basis of said sale-deed, one of the accused persons got registered a general power of attorney in his favour from legal heirs of said relative of accused, filed a suit for declaration and obtained ex parte decree deceitfully---Evidence on record had shown that accused did not appear to be concerned with preparation of alleged forged sale deed which was executed more than 30 years back by their predecessor-in-interest---Accused, in circumstances did not appear to be directly involved in preparation of alleged sale-­deed---Case being fit for allowing concession of pre-arrest bail to accused, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him, was confirmed.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 2005 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AZAM
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---bail , refusal of---Complainant purchased plot in question from one of the co-sharer of said property with specific boundary---Possession of the same was handed over and a boundary wall was raised/constructed by the complainant---Accused party being co-sharer, tried to sell same on the pretext that mutation recorded in the name of complainant on the basis of registered sale deed was set aside and same land was gifted to one of accused persons by his father who further sold same to other accused---In order to usurp the land of complainant, on the pretext of undivided Khata, a gift was created by accused without delivering possession, and on the basis of that, a document was prepared to transfer land to accused while doing so, accused escaped the sight of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of complainant---Mutation would hot confer any title and cancellation of mutation would not affect the title of the complainant--Accused had failed to make out a case for grant of bail ---Accused tried to bribe S.H.O. to get possession of the .land and F.I.R. was recorded against him on the complaint of S.H.O.---All that had reflected on the mala fide and criminal intention of accused---Challan had been submitted in the Court and charge had been framed---No case for grant of bail was made out.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1980 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed ANWAR MEHMOOE SHAH
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Accused, on the last date of hearing, undertook to compensate/pay alleged amount to complainant, but on the next date of hearing, he stated in the court that he was not in a position to make payment to complainant---Accused did not appear before the Trial Court after obtaining bail before arrest---Accused was found guilty during the investigation---One who would hoodwink the order of the court, was not entitled to any concession---Accused had deliberately disappeared from the Trial Court, which had shown his mala fide intention---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was recalled.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1791 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Vehicle in question had initially been registered in the name of deceased husband of complainant---Record had also revealed that apart from complainant deceased had also another wife---Contention of accused that since he had been driving car in question as a driver during lifetime of deceased husband of complainant and after his death both wives of deceased had authorized him to get said car transferred in his name as a step towards distribution of estate of deceased, was a claim which could not be summarily brushed aside---Even otherwise apart from S.467, P.P.C., offence with which accused was charged with, did not attract prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. --- Applicability of S.467, P.P.C., in circumstances called for further probe--Accused were in custody by the last more than five months and the trig' had not commenced---Accused were admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Sh. SALEEM AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17 & 27(VIII)---bail , grant of---Accused in support of his plea that he was permanent resident of United Kingdom and was also employed there, had placed on record photo-copies of the debit cards issued in his name by the banks in United Kingdom and his N.H.B. Medical Card etc.---Said documents prima facie were sufficient to show that accused had settled in the foreign country and was on temporary visit to Pakistan---Ingredients of S.17 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, would not be attracted against accused by virtue of S.27(viii) Emigration Ordinance, 1979---Sections 420 & 471, P.P.C. were bail able offences, whereas no evidence was on record to show that accused himself had forged the documents in question---Offence under Ss.468/471, P.P.C. also did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1358 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHURSHEED AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382, 406 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Accused was in jail for more than one year and eight months---Co-accused were admitted to bail ---Matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than 5-1/2 months---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1306 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALAMAT ALI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /468/471 /489-F---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Apart from the allegations levelled in the F.1.R., accused had disentitled himself to the concession of pre-arrest bail by not appearing before the Sessions Court on the date of confirmation or otherwise of his, interim pre-arrest bail , when his bail application was dismissed on merits---Even otherwise, serious allegations had been levelled against the accused who was specifically named in the F.I.R.---Extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail could only be granted in appropriate cases to protect the good names of the citizens--Most prominent ingredient for grant of pre-arrest bail was to show mala fides of police and the complainant against the accused---No ill-will or previous enmity had been pointed out by the accused against the complainant---Offences of fraud and forgery, prima facie, were made out against the accused and he was not entitled to pre-arrest bail ---bail application was dismissed accordingly.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1282 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KAUSARI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---F.I.R. in the case had been lodged with a delay of about eleven years--Offences under Ss.420 & 471, P.P.C. were bail able and matter regarding offence under S.468, P. P. C., and genuineness or otherwise of relevant document was pending before Civil Court; even otherwise offence under S.468, P.P.C. did not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---No evidence was on record of investigation to assert that it was the accused himself who had committed alleged forgery---Surmises and conjectures had no place in criminal law---Both beneficiaries of relevant documents, had already been admitted. to pre-arrest bail ---Accused and complainant were real brothers and complainant had instituted a civil suit in respect of same dispute way back in the year 1996, which suit was pending before civil court---Dispute in the case was between two real brothers over the property of another brother who had died---Delay of eleven years in lodging of F.I.R. and conduct displayed by complainant in the matter prima facie had provided substance to submission made by counsel for accused regarding mala fide implication of accused in the case---Accused had already joined investigation and nothing was to be recovered from his possession---Honour and dignity of a citizen could not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of a mere formality---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FAQIR MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /468/471/506-Pre-arrest bail ---Similar bail application filed by accused had already been dismissed by Sessions Court for non-prosecution---Accused was directed by High Court to move fresh bail application before the Sessions Court---Sessions Court was also directed to decide the fresh bail application strictly on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the absence of accused in his previous bail application---Since the accused apprehended his arrest, he was directed not to be arrested till a specific date giving him protection of about two weeks---bail application was disposed of accordingly.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKMAL KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.468, 471, 420 & 489-F---bail , grant of---F.I.R. lodged with delay of four years---Litigation existed between parties---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he along with co-accused told complainant that on payment of certain amount government land would be allotted in his favour---Complainant alleged in F.I.R. that despite payment of amount to accused, no land was got allotted to him, and when matter was reported to Punchayat accused gave to complainant cheques which were later on' dishonoured---Complainant further alleged that accused also issued forged receipt of bank to him about depositing of money regarding allotment of land in his favour---Post-arrest bail of accused was dismissed by Trial Court---Accused contended that there was delay of four years in lodging of F.I.R.; that there was no signature on cheques and allotment letter allegedly issued in favour of complainant and also on receipt of bank; that complainant himself was involved in case registered under S. 489-F, P.P.C.---Validity---F.I.R. had been lodged against accused and co-accused after delay of four years and offence under Ss.468, 471 & 420 , P.P.C. had been added later on---Offence under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C. were non­-cognizable---Receipts allegedly issued by bank did not bear signature of accused---Offences alleged against accused under Ss.468, 471 & 420 , P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Complainant himself was involved in case registered under S.489-F, P.P.C. which showed that there was litigation between parties---Sufficient reasons were available to believe false involvement of accused in commission of offence which brought his case within ambit of further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail of co-accused had been confirmed by High Court, hence, rule of consistency was attracted to case of accused as his case was at par with the co-accused---Detention of accused for indefinite period was not to serve any useful purpose---Accused/petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail .


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1024 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ILYAS
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.161, 409 & 420 ---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre­-arrest bail , confirmation of---Offence against accused under Ss.161 & 420 , P.P.C. were bail able---Accused being not a public servant, his alleged connection with the offences under S.409, P.P.C. and S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was indirect at the best---Accused according to prosecution, had received 269 gunny bags which he had allegedly misappropriated and in order to compensate for the same he had issued a cheque which was subsequently dishonoured, but prosecution remained unable to refer any particular document to prove alleged misappropriation of said gunny bags---Said cheque had not been issued in favour of relevant department or in favour of any official of relevant .department, but had been issued in favour of `self'---Issuance of said cheque by accused and its connection with allegation levelled against him was a matter which called for further probe---Accused was not named in the main narrative of the F.I.R. and no allegation whatsoever had been levelled against him. therein---Accused had been implicated in the case during inquiry proceedings and in that inquiry the role allegedly played by accused in the entire transaction had, prima facie, failed to travel beyond mere sketchy allegations---Plea regarding mala fide implication of accused in the case, was not without any foundation or substance---Investigation of the case had already been finalized and challan had also been submitted before the Trial Court---Physical custody of accused, in circumstances, was not required by Investigating agency---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Complainant was a lady who had been deprived of huge amount by accused on the pretext of providing a plot of land to her and in furtherance of said design prepared a fictitious and forged agreement to sell---Amount in question was received by accused from complainant---One of accused persons after dismissal of his application did not surrender to the police, but escaped from the Court---Co­-accused after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail did not appear before the Court when case was fixed for confirmation---Both accused after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail did not join investigation---Amount in question had to be recovered from accused---Counsel for accused could not point out any mala fide on the part of complainant or the police for false involvement of accused in the case---Prima facie ample evidence was on record to connect accused with the commission of offences alleged against them---Accused had misused concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to them---Accused were not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail .


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 807 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ROZDAR KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 463, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused had not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had been introduced in the case through a statement made by a co-accused during investigation of the case---Accused had no role to play in the actual sale or purchase of relevant parcel of land and was not a witness of any transaction of sale or purchase and he was not even a beneficiary of any such sale or purchase---Allegation levelled by prosecution against accused was that he had identified the person at the time of issuance of a Fard Malkiyat by a Patwari and at the time of issuance of Fard Malkiyat---Such identification was merely secondary to the main allegation levelled against co-accused regarding actual sale and purchase of relevant piece of land--Investigation of the .case had already been finalized and a challan had been submitted---Continued physical custody of accused in jail, was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose---Question regarding sharing of common intention by accused with his co-accused and also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offence allegedly committed by his co-accused, were questions which required further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. --Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 488 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---bail before arrest, grant of---Only role assigned to accused was that of attesting agreement purported to have been forged by main accused, who had been granted pre-arrest bail ---Since case of accused was on a better footing than that of main accused under the law of consistency, accused was also entitled to same concession---Mala fides of complainant for false involvement of accused, were obvious from the fact that a number of criminal cases were pending between the parties---No recovery had to be effected from accused and investigation being complete, challan had been submitted in the Court---Evidence in the case was documentary in nature and there was no likelihood of accused's tampering with the same---Offence under S.467, P.P.C. was prima facie not attracted to case of accused and other offences mentioned in F.I.R. were punishable with maximum sentence of 7 years and were not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Enough evidence was not available on the record to connect accused with the commission of crime alleged against him---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 424 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : QASID ABBAS
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 337-J & 381-A---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not named in F.I.R.---Identification of accused by complainant at the Police Station was of no legal consequence---Investigating Officer had not collected sufficient evidence to establish the identity of accused---Case against accused being of further probe and inquiry, he was ordered to be released on bail .

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 384 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ROZDAR KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471-bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused who was a Lambardar of the village had not identified the executants at the time of registration of power of attorney; he had identified the person who executed sale-deed---Prima facie accused was not connected with the registration of the power of attorney executed in favour of principal accused who had not yet been arrested---Apparently forgery was committed at the time of registration of power of attorney---Case being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 249 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : WASEEM ZIA
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---bail , cancellation of---Accused was granted conditional bail and thereafter investigation was conducted by D.S.P. who recorded statements of prosecution witnesses---Deputy Superintendent of Police found accused guilty, observing that accused was not only involved in the case, but was also involved in 5/6 other cases, copies of which had been placed on record---Additional Advocate General had gone through the finding of D.S.P. and both of them had fully implicated accused in the case---Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest being totally different, no case for bail before arrest was made out, bail granting order was recalled, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1977 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AMJAD
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Co-accused who had been attributed exactly the same role, had been allowed bail by the Trial Court on the ground that both parties had filed suits for rendition of accounts against each other which were pending in the civil courts; Chat dispute between the parties was of civil nature and that offences charged with did not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---State Counsel had not been able to point out any distinguishable features of the case whereby concession of bail could be declined to accused., when his co-accused had already been granted bail ---Accused who though had absconded, was subsequently arrested- and was in custody for the last more than four months--Involvement of accused in the alleged offence, itself requiring further inquiry, he could not be detained in jail for an indefinite period by way of punishment for his abscondence only---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SARWAR MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---bail before arrest, confirmation of---Allegation against accused persons was that they were the marginal witnesses of the disputed agreement to sell, which agreement, had not been recovered---One of the accused, who had filed application for his after arrest .bail , immediately after his arrest, made a statement to the effect that he had forged/concocted said .agreement to sell---Investigating Officer, in the given situation, was supposed to get said agreement recovered from the accused and then send the same to Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures of accused person to dig out the truth, but Investigating Officer for mala fide reasons, with ulterior motive, and for extraneous consideration, did not recover same, despite said accused remained on physical remand with Investigating Officer for a period of six-days---Investigating Officer dishonestly had conducted investigation in a partial manner and had spoiled prosecution case by not recovering such an important piece of evidence because the whole case was hinging upon said agreement to sell---Both accused had joined investigation and stated during the course of investigation that they never signed the same---In absence of any opinion qua existence or otherwise of their signatures on the non-recovered agreement to sell, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to said two accused persons, were confirmed.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SARWAR MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
---S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 , 467, 468 & 471---bail after arrest, refusal of---Offence alleged against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused, prima facie, being main accused in the case, was not entitled to the relief of bail after arrest.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIR
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Previous enmity existed between accused and the complainant---Accused was alleged to have prepared a bogus Birth Certificate of his son to bring him within the domain of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Prosecution had failed to show as to what benefit had been derived by accused by getting prepared the forged birth certificate as even according to the entry in the B-Form of NADRA, he was less than 18 years of age---Counsel for accused had also painted out that even the Medical Board had declared son of accused between 16 to 17 years---Co-accused who had prepared/issued alleged forged documents had already been granted pre-arrest bail and case of accused was even on better footing than the co­-accused---Nothing was to be recovered from accused and possibility of his false implication in the case by complainant to pressurize and restrain him from pursuing the case of his son, could not be ruled out---No sufficient evidence was on record to prima facie connect accused with alleged crime, and. he had succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry---Mere involvement of accused in other criminal cases of different nature could not be a ground for denying relief of bail to accused as prosecution had to stand on its own legs and previous character of accused could not be used for the benefit of prosecution, if it failed to prima facie connect him with alleged crime in a particular case---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABID HUSSAIN SHAH
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379, 420 & 468---bail , grant of--- Accused had been declared innocent during investigation---Delay of three days had occurred in lodging F.I.R.---No recovery had been effected from accused---Offences with which accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---No evidence of the commission of offence under S.379, P.P.C. being available, same was not attracted to accused while S.420 , P.P.C. was bail able---Offence under S.468, P.P.C. being non-cognizable, bail could not be withheld until the guilt of accused was proved at the trial---Accused, who was behind the bars since 5-3-2006, could not be kept in jail as punishment---Accused was allowed bail , in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1500 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BILAL AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420 ---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Amount in question was given by the complainant to co-accused for joint venture for business with accused---Said co-accused had been declared innocent by the police---Money having not been entrusted to accused, question of misappropriation by accused did not arise---Declaring accused to be guilty of offence by the police, reflected mala fide---Offence alleged to have been committed by accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Ad interim pre­-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 980 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /468/471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Whole controversy related to a power of attorney---Revenue Authorities had declared that the stamp vendor was never issued a licence to sell the stamp paper on which the power of attorney was prepared and that necessary entries did not exist in the record---Police had found the accused guilty and fully involved in the case on the basis of the material provided by Revenue Authorities---Record of Revenue Authorities as well as police investigation had showed that sufficient incriminating material, prima facie, was available against the accused---No ulterior motive, enmity, ill-will or mala fides could be attributed to the Revenue Authorities or to the police for false implication of accused in the case---Court could not enter into a detailed inquiry or appreciation of evidence at bail stage---Original power of attorney was still to be recovered from the accused---Pre-arrest bail was declined to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 864 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias BAKOLA
Side Opponent : SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHORE
---Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /468/471---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F..I.R., refusal of---Investigation of the case was still pending---High Court in a bail application filed by an accused had directed the Investigating Officer to send certain documents for the opinion of Handwriting Expert---No interference at such stage of investigation in its process was called for---Practice of quashing of the F.I.Rs. when the case involved controversial questions of law and fact was not approved---Contentions raised by the petitioners needed factual inquiry which could not be resorted to by High Court while seized of a Constitutional petition---Section 195(1)(c) did not place any embargo against registration of case---Taking of cognizance and recording of F.I:R. being two separate concepts were not to be intermingled---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 600 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : IQBAL HUSSAIN
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 506---bail before arrest---Second bail application---Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed for non-prosecution and in second bail application accused did' not mention that his earlier application for bail before arrest was dismissed---High Court granted to accused interim bail before arrest and matter was fixed for date and accused was directed to appear before High Court on each and every date of hearing till final disposal of bail application---Neither accused nor his counsel was present on the date fixed for hearing and accused did not even file bail bond---Perpetual warrant of arrest and notice of contempt of court were issued against accused, but accused was not present before the Court---Advocate-General was asked to direct Superintendent of Police concerned to arrest accused and produce him before High Court---S.H.O. concerned was also directed to submit a report whether accused had been involved in other cases prior to registration of the present case.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHBAZ ALI
Side Opponent : SHAHBAZ SARFRAZ
--S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Application for cancellation of bail ---Dismissal of application-Post-arrest bail was granted to accused on the grounds that prima facie, no authenticated document bearing signatures of allegedly executant had been sent for comparison; that factum of non-issuance of stamp paper as alleged by complainant was matter of record and could be decided during trial and that offence under S.420 , P.P.C. was bail able while offences under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C. were non-cognizable which required permission of Illaqa Magistrate and no such permission had been sought---Validity---Grounds on basis of which bail was granted to accused were neither factually nor legally correct---Record had shown that duly authenticated papers were sent for the comparison of signatures---Sections 468 & 471, P.P.C. were applied along with S.420 , P.P.C. and in cases where cognizable and non-cognizable offences were applied together or provisions of Penal Code were attracted together, no permission of the Magistrate was required---No complaint was on record to the effect that accused had misused concession of bail ---Once a bail was granted, it should be recalled only on exceptional grounds and it also would amount converting acquittal into conviction---bail application to recall order of Additional Sessions Judge granting bail , was dismissed.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 388 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AZAM
Side Opponent : ARIF ALI
---Ss. 497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 467, 468, 471 & 489-F---bail , cancellation of---No role whatsoever was attributed to co-accused in whole of the F.I.R. and investigation---Application for cancellation of bail filed by petitioner/complainant to the extent of co-accused, was dismissed---Prosecution evidence revolved around accused who was main culprit in the case---Accused went to petitioner/complainant and asked him to purchase plot in question by introducing another co-accused as actual owner of plot in question---Accused was the person who had issued cheque to complainant, but when complainant went to get said cheque encashed, he was told by the Bank that account of accused had been closed---Accused was granted bail before arrest---Validity---Consideration for grant of bail before arrest was totally different from bail after arrest---Trial Court had granted bail to said accused on surmises and conjectures---No case for grant of bail before arrest having been made out to the extent of accused, application for cancellation of bail to his extent was accepted and bail granting order was recalled accordingly.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 326 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mian ZAHOOR ELAHI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Permission from a particular ministry or government official, was not a sine qua non for registration of F.I.R.---F.I.R. in the case had disclosed commission of cognizable offences and for that reason alone no fault could be found with registration of F.I.R.---Record had revealed that Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted investigation in the case, had found accused to be guilty---Record showed that Law Minister had intervened on behalf of accused and had asked investigating D.S.P. to harmonize his investigation---Filing of a civil suit could not bar criminal prosecution where serious offences under Ss.420 , 468 & 471, P.P.C. were prima facie spelt out in the F.I.R.---Counsel for accused had not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling accused to grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail ---Prerequisites for such concession i.e. malice, either on the part of complainant or the police, were conspicuously missing in the case---Police appeared to have been siding with accused---bail petitions were dismissed and interim anticipatory bail allowed to accused, was recalled.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed MAQSOOM HUSSAIN SHAH
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468; 471 & 34---bail , refusal of---Accused along with his co-accused, who was his close relative, had deprived complainant from Rs.6,00,000 by showing him a plot which was not owned and possessed by his co-accused and by so doing had committed fraud on complainant---Offences for which accused was being charged though did not fall under prohibition clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but as accused had deprived an innocent person from his life long earning he did not deserve any discretionary relief---Challan had been submitted in the Court against accused---Trial Court, however, was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TAHIR MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail ---Unexplained delay in F.I.R.---Benefit of doubt---Prima facie case---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he along with his deceased brother, prepared forged documents and illegally occupied the land purchased by complainant---F.I.R. was registered with a delay of five months and brother of accused had already died ten years before lodging of F.T.R.---Effect---Delay of five months in lodging of F.I.R. was unexplained on account of which veracity of prosecution case had become doubtful---Death of brother of accused had also created doubts about authenticity of prosecution case, the benefit of which even at bail stage must go to accused---Offences mentioned in F.I.R. were prima facie not attracted to the case of accused, which even otherwise were not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.---Pre-arrest bail was granted in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUNIR AHMED SAIFI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD JAVAID
---S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Petition for cancellation of bail ---Principles---Respondents/accused had been declared innocent in successive investigations by the police and report for cancellation of F.I.R. was also prepared---Matter was investigated right up to the level of S.S.P. who opined that case against accused was false and fabricated---Trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Ss.497 & 498, Cr.P.C., was fully justified in extending the extraordinary concession of bail to respondents/accused, particularly as mala fides of complainant had been established and nothing had to be recovered from the possession of respondents---Even otherwise, considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail were different and strong exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling the bail once it had been validly granted by the Court below---Provisions of S.497(5), Cr.P.C. were not punitive in nature and there was no compulsion for cancelling bail , unless bail granting order was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted in miscarriage of justice or where respondents/accused were found to be making efforts to misuse concession of bail by extending threats or tampering with prosecution case---Counsel for petitioner having not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in impugned order, petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2007 MLD 1477 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : IMRAN-UL-HAQ HASSAN SAEED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---bail , grant of---Accused, a bank employee had contended that during physical remand obtained by the police, nothing was recovered from him; that departmental enquiry had already been conducted and competent authority had recommended for reinstating him; that during the course of investigation, accused had been found guilty of only contributory negligence; that prosecution was not armed with any direct evidence against him; that no allegation was against him of mis-appropriation or embezzlement, of any amount; that he as per duty roster, was not assigned role of handling cash and only role assigned to him was that of dealing with all types of loan/finances, preparation of all kinds of loan balance books and computer operation; that he had signed two vouchers in a routine matter---Firstly accused had made offer that he was ready to furnish security or executing mortgage deed in favour of the Bank to .compensate in case an award was given against him by the Registrar before whom. application riled by the Bank was pending---Deputy Prosecutor-General though had opposed the bail application on merit, but he had not opposed the offer made by accused---Contention raised by accused had been found to be weighty---bail application of accused in peculiar circumstances of the case was accepted subject to the condition that either accused or somebody on his behalf would mortgage any immovable property valuing not less than an amount of Rs.7,00,000 in favour of Bank to secure the ultimate interest of the Bank.


Citation Name : 2007 MLD 1201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUDASSAR JAVAID
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420 ---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Accused was not involved in any criminal misappropriation of funds as it had been recorded by the auditor that the company sustained losses and no misappropriation was found or unearthed or detected---Accused was found to be innocent during the investigation and remained on judicial remand and no recovery was effected from him---Accused was no more required by the police as per statement of State Counsel---Accused had been placed in Column No.2 and challan had been submitted on the direction of the court after rejecting the request of cancellation of case---Arbitrator .appointed by the parties also observed that no misappropriation was committed by accused---Interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed, accordingly.


Citation Name : 2007 MLD 674 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHAN BAHADUR
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss:405, 420 , 468 & 471---bail , refusal of---Report from the office of Motor Registration Authority had revealed that it was accused who approached the Authorities for issuance of duplicate copy of Registration Book of tractor in dispute and later on upon application of complainant Registration Authorities cancelled duplicate Registration Book in the name of accused---After paying some amount to complainant, accused took over possession of tractor in dispute and later on, refused to pay remaining amount and misappropriated the tractor---In order to show his ownership, accused fraudulently got issued duplicate copy of Registration Book of tractor in. dispute-Prima facie ample evidence was on record connecting accused with commission of offence---bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 MLD 407 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RIAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467 & 468---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---bail , grant of---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R.---Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Even the beneficiaries of the disputed mutation had already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency accused was also entitled for the concession of bail --Accused was allowed bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3004 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FARYAD ALI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of--Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role had been ascribed to Nina---Accused, who was a property dealer, was the master. mind behind the cringe and was the beneficiary of major portion of the amount fraudulently received by him---Purported buyer and owner of property in dispute, were allowed bail on the basis of two affidavits sworn in by the complainant which disclosed that said two persons were also victims of the fraud perpetrated by accused---Said persons had been let off by .the complainant after being satisfied of their innocence in the matter---Document in question was sent for comparison of the signatures and the report received, had revealed that signature of the complainant had been forged on the said document---Accused during investigation, was found to be fully implicated in the crime by the police---After being allowed ad interim. pre-arrest bail by the High Court, accused had failed to join the investigation and had made an attempt to do so only a night before---No mala, fides of complainant or the police lead been shown or established by accused for his false involvement in the case---No case for bail before arrest having been made out, petition was dismissed.



Citation Name : 2007 YLR 2987 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARIF NAVEED
Side Opponent : State
----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /468/471/409--- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of --Allegation against accused was that ort the basis of a fake letter issued from the office of Chief Minister, he had got job of Assistant . Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education---Accused, during- investigation was found innocent and competent authority had recommended for dropping of proceedings against him--Allegation against the accused was. also found,- false during three departmental inquiries and the document on the basis of which he had got job was held to be genuine---bail was granted to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1085 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : IMRAN RAZA
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420 ---Protective bail , grant of---Accused had submitted that bail able warrants were never received or served upon them, which subsequently led to the order for issuance of non-bail able warrants as a result of which they had approached High Court for grant of protective bail s---In view of fact that both complainant and accused were residents of place 'K' as well as alleged incident which led to filing of the direct complaint had also taken place at 'K' filing of the direct complaint, at place 'S' appeared to be with mala fide intention--Protective bail s were granted to accused, in circumstances---Said bail s would be valid for a period of ten days or till such time when accused would surrender themselves before the Trial Court, whichever was earlier.


Citation Name : 2007 YLR 697 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), Ss.3/2(a) (b), 13 & 14---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 109---bail , grant of---Accused who was citizen of Pakistan, allegedly was found involved in using a passport of another person by changing his name and photograph---Until the report was received from issuing place of passport, involvement of accused could not be determined---Since accused was citizen of Pakistan and was holding Pakistan Passport, Ss.13 & 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, were not applicable---Sections 420 & 471, P.P.C. being non-cognizable offences, while S.468, P.P.C., provided sentence up to 7 years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, accused was granted bail , in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2007 YLR 550 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NOOR QADIR TAWAKKAL
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420 & 109---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss.5(r) & 16(A) (a) -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---bail , refusal of---While hearing a plea for bail only tentative assessment of the evidence collected by the prosecution against accused was to be had and detailed scrutiny thereof was not allowed---Prima facie allegations made against petitioner/accused were that he was a Director of the company which allegedly failed to repay outstanding dues advanced to it as loan facility and actually released to it--Petitioner had yet to prove that company cleared all such dues and nothing was outstanding against it---Petitioner was shown as an absconder in the challan submitted by FIA Police and was arrested on issuance of non-bail able warrants of arrest against him by Chairman Accountability Bureau---No satisfactory explanation of such abscondence had come forward---Accused/petitioner did not appear to have made out any case for admitting him to bail ---Constitutional petition was dismissed.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1979 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : RAZA MUHAMMAD BHUTTO
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468, 471 & 477---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---In inquiry conducted on the directions of High Court,. accused persons were exonerated but in subsequent inquiry, they were found to be involved in the offences---Validity---On the basis of earlier report, High Court set .aside the order on the basis of which F.I.Rs. were lodged---In view of conflicting orders and views available on record and furthermore after recall of order prima facie material available .with prosecution connecting accused persons with crime required re-consideration on the basis of evidence---bail was granted to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 1875 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : KASHIF SAEED
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 & 489-F---bail , grant of---Cheque which on presentation. was dishonoured, was issued on 22-3-2007 against the price of gold alleged to have been sold under agreement dated 1-9-2005---No explanation was available as to why no payment was obtained for a period of about 18 months---Question of delay in payment constituting fraud was yet to be considered by the Trial court---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2006 YLR 3061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias PAPPU
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 380, 420 , 471, 467, 468 & 34---bail , refusal of---Agreement of sale, allegedly executed in favour of accused, was not executed by complainant and was forged one---Accused was also previously involved in 10 criminal cases out of which three cases were of similar nature for preparation of forged documents and five eases were under the Arms Ordinance---Accused appeared to be of criminal bent of mind and there were chances of repetition of offence, if he was enlarged on bail ---Regarding contention of counsel for accused that complainant had raised no objection to the grant of bail to accused, . suffice it to say that offences in the case were not compoundable---Discretion for grant of bail could not be exercised at the option of complainant, but the Courts had to act judiciously according to the facts and circumstances of each case---Accused, prima facie, was connected with the commission of offence, who had failed to show any reason for his false implication in the case---Offence under S. 467, P. P. C. was also prima facie made out against accused as through alleged forged documents a huge amount of Rs.10 lac was shown to be received by complainant who then agreed to transfer his valuable property in favour of accused---Said offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---bail petition filed by accused was dismissed.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2977 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : IKRAM-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 419, 420 & 170---bail , grant of----Unexplained delay of two and half months in lodging F.I.R.---Accused entitled to get benefit of such delay ---Accused was in judicial lock-up since long but trial had not commenced---Accused was not a previous convict---Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Case being fit for grant of bail to accused, he was admitted to bail .


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2851 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : M. IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Delay in registration of case, did not appear to be fatal, if story put forward by complainant was believed to be true---Amount in question had already been deposited by co-accused who was recorded to be a guarantor on the part of complainant---Prima facie, no evidence was available to show that accused had any connivance or interest of personal gain in the matter, there could be some negligence on part of accused in not properly examining the record of the loan---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2475 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381, 420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,10,000 by forging signatures of Chief Executive Officer of the company---Grandfather of accused had paid back entire amount in dispute---Investigating Officer conceded that he had not obtained signatures of accused for comparison with alleged signatures on the cheque---No steps had been taken to obtain cheque alleged to have been forged by accused---Case of accused was open to further inquiry---Offence with which accused had been charged, fell outside the prohibitory limits of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Accused was admitted to bail .


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1927 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.468, 471, 420 & 406---Ad interim pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Two basic pieces of evidence were available before High Court, which, prima facie, looked favourable as far as accused was concerned: One was that the report of A.S.P. had been further endorsed by A.S.P. (Investigation) and the other was the statement of Local Commissioner, who went to execute the document---Question of impersonation was still to be established and the best persons for that purpose were the vendors, who were yet to be investigated by A.S.P. (Investigation), but they were not presently available---bail application had been lingering for the want of said two pieces of evidence---bail of accused was confirmed subject to condition that in case the A.S.P. (Investigation) called vendors, interrogated them and came to the contrary view, then what was already said in the two reports would be liable to cancellation and other side could always make an application for cancellation of bail ---Confirmation of the bail application was absolutely without prejudice to the right of cancellation.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Rana ASHFAQ AHMED
Side Opponent : State
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Allegation against accused as alleged in F.I.R. was that he joined service as a Lecturer in the Government College after obtaining fictitious appointment order---Accused had attached copy of appointment letter issued by competent Authority according to which he was appointed as officiating Assistant Lecturer---Prosecution had not been able to collect sufficient evidence against accused to connect him prima facie with commission of crime---None of the offences against accused fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause under S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail , in like cases, was a rule and refusal was an exception---No exceptional circumstances were available to refuse bail to accused---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SAFDAR ALI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 467, 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Accused were no more required for any further investigation---Co-accused had already been granted bail and case of accused was at par with said co-accused---Accused were also admitted to bail in view of principle of consistency.


Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAHOOR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.161 & 420 ---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. in the case had been lodged with a delay of about three years---Case was not a case of a raid and recovery, but was one of alleged private payment of illegal gratification---Accused, as alleged was not Investigating Officer of relevant criminal case and he was not himself in any position to declare any accused person involved in that case as innocent---Nothing had been recovered from possession of accused during investigation of the case---One offence allegedly committed by accused was bail able and other offence did not attract- prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---After completion of investigation, a challan had already been submitted before the Trial Court---Accused being a public servant, little likelihood was of his absconsion in case of his admission to bail ---Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C., accused .,was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1925 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed ISRAR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420 ---bail grant of---Accused/petitioner along with co-accused approached complainant and while introducing himself as .representative of a Telecom Company enquired about plot to fix tower of company thereon---Accused, after selecting a plot demanded from complainant survey fee and 'other expenses but complainant, on becoming suspicious, handed accused over to police---bail petition of accused was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Complainant did not suffer any kind of loss at the hands of accused---Offence under S.420 , P.P.C. was bail able and S.419, P.P.C. was not attracted to the case of accused as it essentially involved cheating and impersonation but element of cheating was missing in the case against accused---Offences alleged against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---bail petition filed by accused was allowed.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 & 406---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Delay of twelve days in lodging F.I.R., had not been explained and false involvement of accused on account thereof could not be ruled out---Accused had been involved in the case by complainant through supplementary statement made by him after lapse of fourteen months---Accused was on physical remand with the police but no recovery was effected from him---Provisions of Ss.420 & 406, P.P.C., prima facie, were not attracted to the case of accused---Even otherwise maximum sentence under Ss.420 & 406, P.P.C. was seven years which was not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was behind the bars for the last six months, but without being any progress in the trial---Accused was no more required by the police as the challan had been submitted---Keeping accused behind the bars would amount to punish him without trial---Tentative assessment of evidence on record revealed that no sufficient evidence was available with the prosecution to connect accused with commission of offences alleged against him---Case of accused squarely fell within S.497(2), Cr.P.C. being one of further inquiry---Accused was allowed bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1775 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and was no more required for further investigation---Investigation qua accused was complete---Keeping accused behind the bars, would not serve any beneficial purpose or advance the case of prosecution---Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 1793 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MARRIAM ANTHONY NOROHANA
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Main allegation of prosecution against co-accused, was that he was involved in illegal business of preparing false and forged visas of different countries---All documents had been taken in custody by police, even if prosecution had been able to assign any role against accused, then also entire case of prosecution was based on documents which were already in possession of police---Question of tampering with the documents, had gone out of question, in circumstances---Case against accused being a case of further inquiry, they were admitted to bail in circumstances.