Saturday, November 21, 2009

Case Law, Bail 420,468,467,471,

Citation Name : 2005 SCMR 1899 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SHAH NAWAZ
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---bail , grant of---High Court had cancelled the bail allowed to the accused on the ground that the same Additional Sessions Judge had granted after arrest bail who had earlier declined to grant pre-arrest bail to him---Considerations for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail being totally different, High Court had wrongly cancelled the bail allowed to accused by the same Additional Sessions Judge---Accused according to F.I.R. was also defrauded---Section 467, P.P.C. did not appear to have been attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case---Other offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P.C. ----Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2005 SCMR 1666 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Aga JEHANZEB
Side Opponent : N.A.B. and others
--Ss. 406/420 /467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of---Petition for leave to appeal filed by accused had called in question order passed by High Court whereby Constitutional petition filed by accused seeking post-arrest bail was dismissed---Accused was in continuous detention for the last two years and trial of his case was not in sight in near future and complete challan had not yet been submitted and prosecution had submitted a list of 83 witnesses to be examined despite voluminous documentary evidence---Supreme Court directed that after submission of challan in Court, if trial of case would not commence or concluded within 30 days from date of submission of challan, accused would automatically become entitled to grant of bail .


Citation Name : 2009 YLR 202 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : HABIB AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420 /468/471---bail , grant of---Disputed motorcar had been handed over to the complainant and accused was behind the bars since 10-7-2007---Investigation in the case was complete and challan had been put in court and the presence of accused was no longer required for investigation---None of the offences with which accused was charged was hit by the embargo laid down in S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to the concession of bail ---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 19 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : SHOUKAT ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420 /468/471/489-F---bail , refusal of---Fraud case involving procurement of goods worth Rupees twenty eight lac through deceitful means, the documentary proof of which was available on record and the cheques had also been bounced---Likelihood of abscondence of accused too could not be ruled out because in the past he remained absconder for some time---Such was not a case in which discretion should be exercised in favour of accused in granting him bail ---Accused could not claim bail in non-bail able offences as a matter of right even though his case did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---When a person was involved in a series of cases relating to offences badly affecting public-at-large, discretion of granting bail could be refused to accused.

Citation Name : 2009 YLR 921 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365, 420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Prosecution's story, qua allegation of abduction of the complainant having been found to be false during investigation, offence under S.365, P.P.C. was deleted; however, instead of recommending the cancellation of the case, offences under Ss. 420 , 468 & 471, P.P.C. were substituted by the Investigating Officer-Police file, prima facie, had revealed that there was no evidence of forgery against accused persons---Physical custody of accused persons, was not needed by the Investigating Officer-Possibility of registration of the case, against accused, due to the mala fides of the complainant, could not be ruled out---Law of bail being not a static law, while deciding the pre-arrest bail application, the court could not be oblivious to the merits of the case---Pre-­arrest bail earlier granted to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2009 YLR 450 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : IMRAN MAQBOOL
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 497, 498 & 440---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 408/420 /468---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Observations of Trial Court in bail granting order to the effect that police could arrest accused, if found him guilty during investigation already transferred on complainant's application---Validity---After granting bail to accused by Court, matter of its cancellation would lie within jurisdiction of Court and could not be left in hands of police---Giving up jurisdiction of Court in favour of police was neither required by law nor could be approved---Such observations were not only illegal, but were outcome of improper exercise of jurisdiction by Trial Court---High Court, without issuing notice to and hearing complainant, accepted revision petition and expunged such observations from impugned order of bail .


Citation Name : 2009 YLR 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : INAM ULLAH BAIG
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /468/471---Cancellation of pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Complainant had assailed the grant of pre-arrest bail to accused after a period of more than 1-1/4 years---Right of moving for cancellation of bail could not be availed by the complainant according to his whim and convenience and bail could not be cancelled merely to satisfy the vendetta of the complainant---Civil litigation regarding the cancellation of the questioned documents was pending adjudication between the parties---F.I.R. had been lodged against the accused after six years of the alleged occurrence---Challan had already been submitted in the Court after completion of investigation in the case---Documents allegedly forged by the accused were in possession of prosecution and physical custody of accused was not required for investigation purposes---Certain conditions, no doubt, had to be fulfilled for grant of pre-arrest bail , but at the same time while deciding bail before arrest application Court could not be oblivious of the merits of the case---Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused by Sessions Court was dismissed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 690 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NABI BAKHSH
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /467/468/471---Pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Despite dismissal of earlier application of pre-arrest bail accused persons had not surrendered so far and in view of their conduct they were not entitled to any discretionary relief and their second bail before arrest application was not competent---Contention that in view of the report of Finger Print Bureau in favour of accused fresh ground was available to them to move the present bail application was misconceived, as the said report was available even at the time when previous bail petition of accused was dismissed being not pressed by High Court---Retired official of Finger Print Bureau at the asking of accused had prepared the aforesaid report privately---Dismissal of earlier bail application had been mentioned in the order of Sessions Court, but despite that it was not disclosed in the present application and technically wrong certificate had been given by the counsel for the accused at the end of the bail application---bail was declined to accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 142 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RIAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , refusal of---Accused was found guilty during investigation/inquiry Nothing was on record to show that complainant had any animus against accused---Cogent material existed on record providing reasons to believe that accused tried to play hell with the complainant through forgery---Public servants were supposed to be custodian of rights of the people---Act done by accused brought the case under exception to the rule whereby bail was allowed in cases of offences involving punishment falling under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---bail application, in circumstances, was held to be without any force and was dismissed.


Citation Name : 2009 MLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHALID MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 506---Pre-­arrest bail , grant of---While lodging the F.I.R., no date and time of the occurrence was given by the complainant---Sale-deed in respect of property in question was duly registered and on basis of said sale-deed, mutation was duly sanctioned in favour of the complainant---Prima facie, it appeared that after keeping mum for a period of about two years, the complainant got a rectification deed, which however, could not be registered---Investigation of the case was still in progress---Was yet to be determined as to whether said rectification deed was executed by accused or the same was prepared and forged by the complainant---Question of applicability of offence under Ss.468/471, P.P.C., in the peculiar circumstances of the case, required further probe---Offence under S.420 , P.P.C. was bail able---Accused was found innocent during the first investigation and allegations levelled against him were found false, but report for cancellation of F.I.R. which was prepared could not mature---Investigating Officer submitted that he did not require physical custody of accused for effecting recovery of any document as all the relevant documents were already in his possession---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2009 YLR 835 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 498 & 561-A---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(7)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /468/471/109---Reduction of surety amount---Cheques issued by State Bank of Pakistan in favour of other persons had been deposited by accused in different accounts opened by him---According to charge sheet the amount against all the four accused persons had accumulated to Rs.83.00 Million, while Rs.39, 414 Million were deposited in the account of present accused and he and his wife had encashed the same---Trial Court had granted bail to accused subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.40.00 Million vide impugned order---As per provision of S.5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, where the charge shed-had specified the amount in respect of which the offence was alleged to have been committed, while releasing the accused on bail the amount of bail wanted not be less than the said amount---Four individuals were involved in the case and one person could not singularly commit such crime---Surety amount, therefore, could be divided among all the four accused the accused was liable to pay surety amount in the sum of Rs.21.00 Million---Surety amount fixed for the release of accused on bail by Trial Court in the sum of Rs.40.00 Million was reduced to Rs.21.00 Million accordingly.


Citation Name : 2009 YLR 69 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SALMAN KHALIL
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420 ---Cancellation of bail , application for---Counsel for applicant/ complainant had contended that he tried to argue before the Trial Court, but his request was turned down---Counsel had contended that he would not press his application for cancellation of bail if the direction be given to the Trial Court that he should be allowed to address the court on behalf of the complainant---Contention of counsel being reasonable, the Trial Court was directed to hear the counsel on behalf of the complainant and decide the pending bail application within the specified period.


Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 456 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ADNAN MALIK
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/468/420 /468/471/109---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), First and Second Scheds.---bail , grant of---Involvement of accused as Accounts Officer in withdrawal of huge amounts by opening fake accounts in name of his brother and family---Brother of accused having facilitated in opening of fake accounts was absconding---Father of accused agreeing to deposit a pay order of Rs.50,00,000 failed to produce the person in whose favour he had issued such pay order---Prosecution had made out a prima facie case against accused---bail was declined to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID QURESHI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 322, 324, 285, 420 & 34---Explosives Act (IV of 1884), Ss.4/5---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Police had submitted challan after 18 months of the incident and that too after converting the offence under S.302, P.P.C. to S.322, P.P.C. which was only punishable for Diyat and other offences were bail able---Affidavit filed by the complainant exonerating accused had made the case of accused of further inquiry---Nothing was in the police file which could reveal that accused was business partner and equally responsible with the absconding accused for storing the explosive substance---All such factors had made accused entitled to be admitted on bail --Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2009 MLD 320 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : ZIA AFTAB
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.411, 413, 471, 201, 420 & 468---bail , grant of---After issuance of direction by the High Court for expeditious conclusion of trial within four months, even the charge had not been framed in the case and the direction period had lapsed---Trial Court had not seriously taken the direction issued by the High Court---Copy of order sheet, which had been produced by the counsel for accused, had shown that date was fixed for framing of charge, but later on no tangible progress had been made in that case---Accused persons were languishing in jail for the last more than one year---Most of the sections of P.P.C. attributed in the case were bail able, whereas, applicability of S.413, P.P.C. was to be determined at the time of trial after recording of evidence---Nobody could be kept behind the bars for indefinite period without trial, which would amount to punishment without trial--Accused were admitted to bail , in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2009 P Cr. L J 486 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : Chaudhary BARKAT ALI
Side Opponent : AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR EHTESAB BUREAU, MIRPUR
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/419/420 /468/471/109---bail , refusal of---Accused had fraudulently debited the accounts, which were mentioned in the F.I.R. and utilized the public money for his own use and deprived the account-holders from their profits on their saving---Delay per se in lodging the report, was no ground for grant of bail in each and every case because every case was to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances---Points raised, by the counsel for accused touched the merits of the case and same could not be decided at the bail stage---Only tentative assessment could be made for the purpose of bail and detailed assessment/evaluation of evidence was not desired---Version of the counsel for accused that offences under F.I.Rs. in question did not fall in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., was no ground for grant of bail and it was not a universally accepted rule that in each and every case, which was not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted---Material collected by the prosecution had, prima facie, connected accused with the offences allegedly committed by him---No rebuttal was on the record regarding the matter that the embezzled amount had not been recovered from accused---Accused was prima facie fully implicated in the offences during course of investigation of Ehtesab Bureau---Accused was the Bank Manager and was trustee of amount of account-holders and he was not there to doll the same in that manner for his personal use---From tentative assessment of the material collected by the prosecution, it could be concluded that reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused was fully implicated in the embezzlement of huge amount from the branches of the Bank for issuing fictitious cheque books through bogus signatures by him---bail was refused.


Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 74 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : CANTONMENT BOARD FAISAL CANTT., KARACHI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ADIL KHAN ,ABDUL GHAFFAR, QAZI MAUHAMMAD SHAMIM
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420 , 468, 471/, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of---Respondents having been granted bail by High Court, petitioner had sought leave to appeal against said order---Investigation in the case had been completed long before---No useful purpose would be served by remanding respondents to the custody---Respondents had been availing concession of bail for the last more than one year and no allegation was that respondents had abused such concession---Supreme Court declined interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court, unless it was shown that same was exercised arbitrarily, in a perverse manner or in contravention of the settled principles of law---No exceptional case having been made out and no compelling circumstances were shown for interference with the said exercise of discretion by the High Court, no ground was made out for grant of leave, petitions were dismissed.


Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 1459 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , refusal of---Question relating to the determination of guilt in crime were not to be answered at bail stage which might prejudice the case of any party---Impugned judgment of High Court recalling pre-arrest bail granted to accused by Sessions Court was just and proper in view of the material available on record and called for no interference as no question of public importance was involved in the case---Leave to appeal was refused to accused by Supreme Court accordingly.


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 1010 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAMEED
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , refusal of---Plea of accused was that since co-accused had been released on bail , he was also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of principle of consistency---Validity---Principle of consistency was not attracted in the case of accused as he had played pivotal role in the event---Accused was beneficiary of alleged fraud involving huge amount and valuable property---Accused had also a background of involvement in another similar case---Other plea of accused was that offences against him being punishable up to seven years' imprisonment, his case was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.---No doubt such was a general rule, but was subject to exception---Where allegation of repeated commission of same offences, directly affecting the society had been made, person involved could lose his right of bail based on general principles---Such was to safeguard the public from his deceitful designs---Prima facie case having been established, discretion could not be exercised in favour of accused in enlarging him on bail .


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 906 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : HIKMAT
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 471---.Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6--- National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), Ss.30 & 31---bail , refusal of---Accused was found carrying the capsules full of heroin which was duly recovered from his stomach after X-Ray Examination by a doctor---On weighing same was found 620 grams---Accused had been held up on international departure of the Airport and he was bound to smuggle it to a foreign country---Accused had also disclosed his fake name and he was also travelling on fake and forged documents---Reasonable grounds, in circumstances, existed to believe that he was guilty of offence which was hit by the embargo contained under S.497 Cr.P.C.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1527 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : GHULAM RASHEED
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 411, 419, 420 , 468, 471 & 477-A---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. by the complainant and he was only under arrest on the statement of co-accused, recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Statement of co-accused could not be used against other accused involved in the occurrence---No specific role had been assigned to accused---Facts and circumstances of the case revealed that case of accused was arguable for the purposes of bail and fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1513 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : AKHTAR MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Accused was a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question vide sale agreement duly attested by its marginal witnesses and attested by the Notary Public---Report of `Citizen Police Liaison Committee Central Reporting Cell' proved that said vehicle was neither snatched nor stolen, but was duly owned by the accused---Excise and Taxation Officer after due verification had allowed the transfer of the vehicle in question in the name of accused---Alleged tampering of chassis number of vehicle in question, could not be conclusively determined---Accused prima facie was held entitled to grant of bail before arrest---When the documents of title regarding the vehicle in question were presented before the Investigating Officer after due investigation, he was duly bound to have formed a correct opinion, which was missing in the case, which constituted mala fide on the part of Investigating Agency---bail before arrest already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 698 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : AYAZ
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---bail , refusal of---Accused though had not been charged in the F.I.R., but the police, while cordoning the area had intercepted the motorcar allegedly used in the occurrence where encounter took place---Cross-firing took place from both the sides in which accused was arrested and F.I.R. of that occurrence was lodged under Ss.324/353/427, 420 /34, P.P.C. and Ss.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965---Statement of complainant was recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. in which he had duly charged accused for committing the offence---Accused had also pointed out the place of occurrence, where complainant had been deprived of a mobile phone and cash amount---Offence against accused was heinous and more serious was the way and venue of occurrence, which had become a common routine in the society and that had weakened the society---Offence carried a severe punishment of which accused was charged, though no hurt had been caused, to anyone but an amount of more than the 'Nisab' had been taken away---Reasonable grounds, in circumstances existed to believe that accused had committed the offence, which came within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---bail was refused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL BASAT BAJWA
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---F.I.R. had itself shown that execution of power-of-attorney by the father of the complainant in favour of accused was admitted one---Allegation of adding of some property through interpolation was levelled in the F.I.R., but that matter was sub judice between the parties before the Civil Court, which being the proper forum, would determine as to whether any interpolation was made by accused fraudulently or not; or whether the power-of-attorney was the result of deceitful means---As far as the allegation against accused that he was posing himself as an Advocate when he was not a law graduate, that fact had been admitted by the counsel for accused that accused was not an advocate---At the most case against accused was made out under S.419, P.P.C., which was punishable only for three years and that did not fall within the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Application of provisions of Ss.420 /468/471, P.P.C. required further inquiry and none of the provisions fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P. C. and grant of bail , was a rule whereas refusal was an exception---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM SARWAR
Side Opponent : State
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of -Complainant obtained possession of plot in question, but later on he was dispossessed by the subsequent purchaser--Complainant had a remedy by moving an application seeking possession in the suit by way of amendment in the plaint and in case he successfully proved that the sale in his favour was prior to the sale in favour of subsequent purchaser etc., he would definitely get the possession of the same through the court---Question as to whether accused could be prosecuted under S.420 , P.P.C. as well as S. 468, P.P.C. was one of further inquiry and offence under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C." 'were' non-cognizable, whereas offence under S.420 , P.P.C. was .compoundable---None of the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and question of forgery could not be determined at bail stage---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2307 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468, 471 & 511---bail , grant of---Ample incriminating material was available on the record regarding implication of accused in the crime---Accused was beneficiary of the disputed document and in order to pre-empt the consequences of his illegal act, he had filed a civil suit after the F.I.R. had been lodged---Accused was a record-holder as in the past also two criminal cases were registered against him vide F.I.R. for offence under S. 420 , P.P.C. and other F.I.R. for offence under S.379, P.P.C.---During the course of investigation, accused was found to be implicated by the police in the crime---bail , application by accused, was dismissed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2307 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 467, 468, 471 & 511---bail , grant of---No evidence of direct involvement of co-accused in the crime was available as he was only the scribe of the document and not its beneficiary---Attesting witnesses of the documents had already been allowed bail by the lower court---Co-accused was behind the bars for more than five months and there was no progress in the trial after submission of challan---Keeping Co-accused behind the bars would amount to punishing him without a trial---Co-accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RIZWAN
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 420 , 471 & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(6)---bail , grant of---Jurisdiction of High Court--State Counsel had argued that in view of provisions of S.5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, High Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail in respect of the offences under said Ordinance---Validity---Only restriction placed by subsection (6) of S.5 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, was that if the Court intended to do so; it must satisfy itself that there appeared reasonable grounds to believe that accused was guilty of a Scheduled offence---Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail to accused involved in cases under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 was intact and Section 5(6) of said Ordinance did not curtail the powers of the High Court to grant bail ---Accused neither was a public servant nor there was any allegation of preparing fictitious or forged documents and using the same---Provisions of S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Ss. 468 & 471, P.P.C. could not be attracted---To make out a case under S.406, P.P.C., according to the definition of "criminal breach of trust" contained in S.405, P.P.C., ingredients which must exist were that property should be entrusted in any manner to the person; that he should have the domain over the property; that he dishonestly mis-appropriated or converted that property to his own use; or that he dishonestly used or dispossessed the property in violation of any direction of law---No reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had misappropriated or converted the property to his own use---Accused had been proved to have no part in misappropriation of pledged stock and they were innocent---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 1915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AFZAL KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408, 420 , 468, 471 & 380---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss. 5, 12 & Sched. ---Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), Ss.83-A & 84---bail , refusal of---Pledged stock in question, practically, was in the custody of accused persons as the same was lying in godown within their factory premises---Prosecution had already collected documentary proof in form of 12 receipts of sale of rice by accused persons, during the period when their factory was closed and they could not explain as to from where they got the rice sold by them---Prosecution had also collected evidence regarding purchase of husk filled by accused persons in 9000 bags in place of rice---Accused persons also could not furnish any reason for purchase of such a huge quantity of husk from the market when they themselves were running factory of the same trade---Investigating Officer had also added offence under S.380 P. P. C against accused persons---Accused persons, in circumstances, could not say that offences charged were not made out against them---Accused were also involved in other criminal cases of cheating---Trial Court had already taken cognizance of challan which was ripe for trial/decision and at such stage accused were not entitled to the concession of bail .

Citation Name : 2008 YLR 1248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BASHARAT ALI CHAUDHRY
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 /109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Application for cancellation of bail ---Accused was not a government servant and it was for the Trial Court to see as to how far accused could be held liable for the commission of offence under S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 allegedly committed by his co-­accused---Offence under S.420 , P.P.C. was bail able and as a matter of right accused was entitled to grant of bail ---No illegality was found in the impugned order whereby discretionary relief had been provided to accused---Cancellation of , bail was declined.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 1220 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD EJAZ
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 420 , 468, 471 & 477-A---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Allegations made in the F.I.R. were general and collective---Complainant had not levelled any specific allegation against any particular accused---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showing some mechanical erasure in the relevant document could not fix its responsibility on any accused---Vendors of the property in issue had not challenged before any forum that the words or the lines in the relevant deed purported to have been added subsequently, were not a part of the original deed---Tehsildar concerned had found the accused being bona fide purchasers of the relevant property through registered sale-deed---Provincial Mohtasib had even refused to accept the complainant's allegations against the accused as correct--Collector as well as the Sub-Registrar had also concluded in the inquiry report in favour of accused and against the complainant party---Deed writers and the Local Commissioners had already sworn affidavits confirming that the alleged interpolations in the relevant deed were part of the original deed itself and the same had not been incorporated in the deed at a subsequent stage---Genuine and bona fide civil dispute had been transformed by the complainant party into a criminal case which smacks of mala fides on its part---Accused had joined the investigation and nothing was to be recovered from them---Challan had already' been submitted in the court---Liberty of a citizen was too precious and sacrosanct to be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of a mere formality---Concession of bail ought not to be with-held by way of premature punishment---Ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 1089 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BADAR MUNIR
Side Opponent : ALI SAFIYAN
Ss.497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420 ---Pre-arrest bail , cancellation of---Both accused persons were named in F.I.R.---Co-accused was real brother of one of said accused persons, while he was maternal uncle of other one---Said accused was employee of the complainant and had introduced co-accused and one of said accused persons to complainant and persuading him to purchase land in question, which land, later on, was found not existing in the Revenue Record---Prima facie, both the accused persons in connivance with co-accused had defrauded the complainant of the huge amount---Considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest, were altogether different and the ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest were very much lacking in the case---Accused persons, in circumstances were wrongly extended extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail ---Pre-arrest bail allowed to accused persons, were cancelled.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 1075 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of--Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he with the aid of co-accused, had manoeuvred the preparation of a power of attorney and its registration in the absence of the complainant while complainant had gone abroad---Allegation was that on the basis of said power of attorney major part of land belonging to the complainant was transferred by accused in name of his wife as well as the son-in-law of the complainant---Evidence on record had proved that complainant was present in Pakistan on the date when said power of attorney was executed and complainant proceeded abroad after two days---More than one transfers were conducted by accused on basis of said power of attorney, but only disputed transaction had been challenged by the complainant---Held, validity or invalidity of said power of attorney, would be equally applicable to all the alienations made by accused---Case being of further inquiry, accused was entitled to the concession of bail .


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 804 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SARWAR
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---Supreme Court had granted bail to one of co-accused and case of accused was on better footing than the case of said co­-accused---Another co-accused had also been granted bail by the High Court---Accused was also entitled to the same relief on the principle of consistency---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 778 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 466, 468 & 471---Post-arrest bail , grant of---Transaction had not attained finality and no loss had been suffered by complainant---Was yet to .be determined during the trial as to the manner in which the thumb-impressions of the complainant had been obtained and that would be done only after recording of some material evidence in the case---Accused was behind the bars for the last. more than four months and was no more required for investigation, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution---Offences with which accused had been charged, did not for the time being, attract prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. ---Accused too was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 778 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Side Opponent : State
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 , 466, 468 & 471---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Contention of counsel for accused that accused being Patwari had only performed his duty by entering the mutation and had not derived any benefit in the transaction; did not appear to be wholly without substance---Record also revealed that no damage had been suffered by complainant and that if any fraud was committed same had been detected well within time---Affixation of thumb-impressions on relevant papers was not denied---No material was available on. record to prima facie show that accused had forged any public record---Culpability and role played by accused during transaction called for further probe within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C.---Accused had been joining investigation and no recovery was to be effected from him---No useful purpose would be served by sending accused behind the bars in the offences which did not attract prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. ---Interim anticipatory bail already granted to accused, was confirmed.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHID
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Offences with which accused had been charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 2-12-2006---bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (10 of 1984), Sched. ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408/420 /468/471/380-bail , refused of---Offences with which the accused were charged were mentioned in the Schedule attached with the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, provisions of which had the overriding effect, by virtue of its section 5 making the offences non-bail able---Accused were, prima facie,. connected with the commission of heinous scheduled offences---Filing of the suits by the parties for recovery of finance availed by the accused and for rendition of accounts did not negatively reflect on initiation of criminal prosecution, which would continue---Trial Court had already taken cognizance of the challan which was ripe for trial/decision and at this juncture accused were not entitled to the concession of bail ---Accused were refused bail accordingly.


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 1460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUZAMMAL JAVED
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/420 /506---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Accused, according to record, had executed an agreement to sell his shop for a consideration of Rs.52 Lac, on the basis of which complainant had filed a suit in Civil Court which was still pending---Fate of the said agreement to sell would be determined by Civil Court in accordance with law after recording evidence of the parties---Registration of the criminal case against the accused appeared to have been filed .with mala fide intention by converting civil dispute into criminal offence---Non-compliance of agreement to sell did not constitute any offence---Dispute between the parties was of civil nature for the sale and purchase of the shop and sending the accused to jail would not strengthen the prosecution case any more, as nothing was to be recovered from him---F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of one year anti four months which was very significant and possibility of false implication of accused could not be ruled out---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 706 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : QAMAR SHAHZAD
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 411 & 489-D---bail , refusal of---Recovery of incriminating articles had been effected from accused---Offence alleged against accused was of serious nature and recovery had also been effected from them---No mala fides of the police were manifest on the record---Plea of bail of accused was rejected---Prosecution, however was directed to complete the investigations expeditiously.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 863 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RANA BASHIR
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468 & 471---bail , grant of---bail had been granted to co-accused by the High Court---Case of accused was at par with co-accused who were granted bail ---Accused was allegedly only the marginal witness of agreement in question and was not the beneficiary of the transaction---Keeping accused in jail for an indefinite period would amount to punishment before the trial---Keeping in view the rule of consistency, accused was also entitled for the grant of bail .


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 376 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Side Opponent : SAEE MUHAMMAD
S.497(5)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468 & 34---Application for cancellation of bail ---Question involved in the case was as to whether 'Talaq' allegedly given by applicant to his wife, was made by him or not---Prima facie it seemed that Talaq deed was a forged document---Even otherwise they had never received the notice of Talaq allegedly issued by applicant and as per certificate issued by Secretary Union Council, no proceedings in that regard had taken place before the Union Council as required under the law---Marriage between the applicant and wife had not been denied---Matter was not a case of bail before arrest---bail granting order in favour of respondents passed by the Trial Court, was withdrawn and their bail was cancelled.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 321 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FALAK SHER
Side Opponent : State
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406 & 420 ---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Civil dispute seemed to have been converted into criminal offence---Complainant himself had stated that buffalo in question had been kept at the dera of a person by accused and said person had promised with the complainant to return the same, but subsequently told him that the buffalo had been taken away by the accused---Except for the statement of co-accused, nothing was on record to prima facie connect accused with the commission of crime---Even otherwise, the ingredients of breach of trust as defined in S.405, P.P.C., were not made out in the case---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AYOOB
S. 497(5)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.471/468/420 ---Cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by Judicial Magistrate, refusal of---Accused had surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate who vide impugned order had admitted him to bail ---Validity---Held, the order of the Judicial Magistrate admitting the accused to bail was not in consonance with law, since in essence the Magistrate had granted bail before arrest to him, when he had no such power---There was no concept of a "judicial custody" by way of 'a voluntary surrender before the Court---Unless and until the accused was under actual restraint or custody by the police or other law enforcing agencies, he could not be construed to be in "custody"---However, the case was not fit to cancel the bail granted to accused at such a belated stage for the very simple reason that on account of the Record and Proceedings having been consigned to High Court, the trial had been delayed by 6/7 years, for which the accused could not be attributed any blame---Even the Prosecutor-General had conceded that cancellation of bail at such a belated stage would cause undue hardship to the accused---Accused had been appearing on every date before High Court---bail allowed to accused was not cancelled in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 2686 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SAJJAD AHMED
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420 , 468, 471 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Constitutional petition earlier filed by accused was disposed of with direction that two witnesses be examined and through that very order accused was allowed to repeat the petition for bail ---Statements of said witnesses were to be scrutinized by the Trial Court to put a certainty of the liability upon accused, while the Trial Court had also to see as to whether the procedure had been followed or not; and in such a situation what would be liability of accused---Two other accused persons had been enlarged through bail ---Case of accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail , in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 PLD 204 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NASRULLH SHARIF
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420 , 468 & 471/34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Interim bail , confirmation of---Co-accused being public servants had been granted bail and some of them had been acquitted---Name of accused had not been mentioned in the F.I.R.---Accused was also entitled to grant of bail as a rule of consistency.


Citation Name : 2008 YLR 920 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : KAMRAN AHMED QURESHI
Side Opponent : State
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.420 , 421, 468 & 109---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Name of accused was neither mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in the interim charge sheet---Role of accused was limited for referring a person for obtaining loan for the vehicle and the amount of commission involved was only Rs.8100---Case, in circumstances was fit where bail should be confirmed---Accused being on interim bail , his bail was confirmed on the same terms and conditions as were laid down in the interim order.



Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 1473 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SIKANDAR MUGHAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 477 & 109---bail , refusal of---Accused availed the loan facility from the Bank to the tune of Rs.10.12 million, but provided fictitious/forged documents to the Bank; it was in connivance with the co-accused and certain Bank officials or officers and just to save their skins accused persons deposited six instalments of a meagre amount---Investigating Officer had collected the documentary evidence to show that accused persons had distributed said amount among themselves---Such was a white-collar crime; accused persons, prima facie, being involved in the case, were not entitled to be enlarged on bail .


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 1360 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 109---bail , refusal of---Nothing was on record to indicate that complainant had any reason or motive to falsely implicate accused in the case---Identification of accused stood prima facie proved and there was no reason to disbelieve the identification of accused on the basis of photographs which were provided to the complainant by the Bank Authorities---Allegation against accused was of serious nature and to discourage the people having such tendencies, they should not be released on bail on technical grounds---Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage, could not be undertaken by the court---Prima facie a case against accused having been made out by the prosecution, his bail application was rejected.

Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 721 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : IBRAHIM KHALTI
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Penal Code (KLV of 1860), Ss.342, 406, 420 , 448, 506/2, 147, 148 & 149---bail , grant of---Civil litigation existed between the parties regarding agricultural lands---Two civil suits filed by one of the accused persons were still pending in the civil court and some evidence had also been led in those cases---Said suits were stated to be in connection with the title of the lands---Considerable delay had taken place on the part of complainant in approaching the court of Justice of Peace for filing the application---After registration of F.I.R. investigation was conducted by Investigating Agency, as a result of which 'case was recommended to be disposed of in false B-class---Presumption was that as a result of investigation the police found accused persons to be innocent---Fact that during investigation accused persons were found to be innocent, would also lend support to the case of accused persons---Accused persons were entitled to concession of bail in circumstances---Interim bail s granted to accused persons were confirmed on the same terms, whereas one of accused persons was allowed bail after arrest, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 684 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : KHIZAR HAYAT
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 , 468, 471 & 467---bail , grant of---Allegations of previous enmity between accused and Police Officer concerned appeared on record---Applications moved by wife of accused who too was a police personnel, to different authorities against. malicious act of said Police Officer against accused was also a part of the record, which had not been specifically denied by the State counsel---Prosecution had also failed to clarify as to how the recovery of forged documents and machine from the house other than the house occupied by accused could be foisted on accused with no satisfactory proof---None of the witnesses of the locality where search was made and alleged recovery was said to have taken place, was associated with the prosecution---Prima facie accused had a case for grant of bail ---Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to bail .


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASIF
Side Opponent : State
S. 514--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468, 471 & 109---Forfeiture of bond---Applicant stood surety for accused, memo of surety produced by applicant was accepted by the court below and after execution of bond, custody of accused was handed over to him with direction to produce accused on each and every date of hearing in court--Surety was duty bound to cause attendance of accused in court on each and every date of hearing and failure of accused to attend the court would react on the surety---If despite of notice served on surety by the court, he failed to produce accused in court, court would be within its right and power to forfeit surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C. and further impose fine thereby directing surety to deposit full quantum of surety bond---Accused had frequently jumped bail with intention that reduced quantum of the surety bond would be deposited, which tantamount to his acquittal from the main case---If accused jumped bail , the surety was not entitled to any leniency and full amount of surety bond must be forfeited by the court, without showing any leniency to the surety.



Citation Name : 2008 MLD 805 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 420 & 506-B/34---Pre-­arrest bail , grant of---Mater was sub judice before Judicial Magistrate---On the day of alleged incident, accused was at place 'K' where he was attending the proceedings of case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate---Criminal proceedings at place 'L', in circumstances, had been motivated to harass and humiliate accused---Question of alibi, however, would be considered by the Trial Court---Sections of P.P.C., mentioned in F.I.R., were bail able in nature except S.506-B, P.P.C.---Accused, in circumstances, had succeeded in making out a prima facie case that .F.I.R. had been manipulated with ulterior motives---Accused in circumstances was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail .

Citation Name : 2008 MLD 803 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 420 & 506/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--Interim bail , grant of---Prima facie, it appeared that accused was present in the city of 'K' on date of incident, when F.I.R. was lodged at place 'L'---Interim bail was granted to accused, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2008 MLD 182 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SHAHIDA BEGUM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
S.561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 420 & 506(2)---Quashing of proceedings---Contents of the direct complaint did not make out any criminal offence against accused---Case was a false one which had been filed only in order to harass ex-wife---Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate had misused his power and had not applied his judicial mind while registering the case as he had not even given a thought for a second that he was issuing bail able warrants against a woman who was living at place "K" to attend the court at place---Judicial Magistrate while registering that case had exceeded his power at "N"---No case under Ss.420 & 506(2), P.P.C. was made out---Such was a clear instance of harassment of an ex-wife---Proceedings were quashed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 843 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : LAL MUHAMMAD KALHORO and others
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 497(1) & 498---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420 /468/471/109---Pre-­arrest bail , confirmation of---No direct evidence was available with prosecution connecting applicants (Revenue Officials) with alleged forgery in Revenue Record or showing their involvement in grabbing of disputed land---Only evidence available on record in police papers against applicants consisted of vague statements of prosecution witnesses---Case against applicants was that of further enquiry---Two other accused having against them similar case had been admitted to pre-arrest bail ---Applicants had joined investigation and got their statements recorded before Investigating Officer---Custody of applicants was not required for any investigation---Interim challan had been submitted---Commencement of trial in near future was not expected---Proposed departmental action against applicants would take sufficient time normally extending to years---Pre-arrest bail granted to applicants was confirmed.


Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 1958 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : NADEEM MAJEED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---National Accountability Ordinance (XVII of 1999), S.18---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Accused, in the present case, .having made out a fit case for the grant of bail in the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, bail could not be withheld by way of punishment---Reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused could not be ultimately found guilty of the charges against him---Leave to appeal having already been granted to examine question of jurisdiction of National Accountability Bureau as an interim relief, direction was issued to release the accused on bail .


Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 1546 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Ch. BASHARAT KARIM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ CHANDOOR
---S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 /467/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cancellation of pre-arrest bail , refusal of---Signatures of accused on the agreement to sell the house were found to be forged by the Handwriting Expert---Suit with regard to some controversy was also pending adjudication in a civil court---Arrest of accused would be with ulterior motive and would cause irreparable injury to his reputation and liberty---Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was not cancelled in circumstances and leave to appeal .was refused accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment