1982 P Cr (PLP)

2. Nao‑Lakha Police, Lahore came to Sukkur and arrested the applicant on 17th August. 1981 who is confined in 'A' Section Police Lock‑up Sukkur, to be taken to Lahore.

3. The Learned counsel, Mr. Gul Bahar, for the applicant in support of the plea for grant of interim bail inter alia submitted that the story set up by the complainant is totally false and is motivated so as to deprive Shamasuddin Shah of Rs. 50,000, which was taken as loan from him against a receipt executed by him and wherein the complainant expressly undertook to return the said amount by 31st August, 1981. The English translation of the said receipt is herein below reproduced :‑ "I Hafiz Abdul Qayoom, son of Shaikh Ali Muhammad by caste Shaikh aged about 40 years, Merchant by profession, Resident of Varburtan, District Sheikhupura. Mr. Shamasuddin Shah son of Suhrab Shah, Resident of Gurdwara Chowk Mukam Road Sukkur had been given the amount which I received today and I also take additional amount of Rs. 50,000 half of which is Rs. 25,000 frost him for the need of business and 1 promise that I shall return this amount of Rs. 50,000 to Shamasuddin Shah by 31st August. 1981 and take back this stamp. This writing acknowledges the receipt for the purpose of proof and record." The learned counsel further argued that the incident is stated to have taken place on 10th August, 1981 at 5 a.m. in the morning but F. I. R. was not lodged until 9‑0 a.m. on 11th August, 1981. It was also urged that the applicant Saifuddin Shah, is a student of B. A. Final classes and comes from a respectable family of Seed community and that the alleged offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years.

4. Mr. Tahir Usmani and Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro learned Advocate appearing for the State, do not oppose the grant of interim bail to the applicant.

5. Considering the above‑narrated facts in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant with particular reference to the receipt executed by the complainant, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim bail in this Court. The offence (under section 380, P. P. C.) alleged against the applicant is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Wali Mohammad v. State (1969 S C M R 233) granted bail to the appellant charged with smuggling of large quantity of gold valued at about a crore of rupees on the ground that the offences in that case, were punishable with 6 years' R. I. in the maximum apart from fine, and that as a rule on a charge of a kind not involving a sentence of death or transportation for life bail should ordinarily be allowed disregarding the grounds of seriousness or anti‑ social nature of offence unless there be strong grounds in the shape of evidence for the belief that he is guilty. In another case reported as Ijaz v. The State (1978 S C M R 64) where the charges against the Petitioner were under sections 419/420‑468/471/409, P. P. C. and on his arrest Rs. 1.70.000 were recovered from him the Honourable Supreme Court made the following observations " . . .Mr. Zafar Mahmood presses for bail on the ground that the charges against the petitioner are not punishable with transportation for life. That is correct. On the other hand Mr. K. M. Iqbal opposes bail on the ground that the charges against the petitioner is of a grave nature because the amount embezzled was huge. No doubt the amount involved is large but by itself this would be cot ground for refusing bail."

6. Lastly I may refer to the case of Manzoor v. State (1972 S C M R 81) where the Honourable Supreme Court observed :‑ "Bail in non‑bailable offences is a matter within the discretion of the Courts which has to be exercised with due care and caution on the facts and circumstances of each case." And the Honourable Judges in that case further held "The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run."

7. Keeping in the view the above authoritative principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and the settled law being that the grant of bail should be the rule and refusal thereof should be an exception to that rule in offences not punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, and while holding that this Court has jurisdiction to grant interim bail to the applicant residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, I accept this application and grant interim bail to the applicant on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000 and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court and direct the applicant to appear before the Court concerned at Lahore within one month from the date of this order. Bail allowed.