2008 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamroz Khan Afridi for Petitioner.
- 2. Arguments of Mr. Jamroz Khan, Advocate for accused petitioner and Mr. Saadat-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the State have been heard in the light of record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 468 & 471
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
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
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.
Judgment & Decree
SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILLANI, J.
The accused petitioner Abdul Hameed has been declined bail by Mr. Sharif Ahmad, Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vide his order, dated 22-10-2007 in case F.I.R. No.16, dated 18-10-2006 under sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.C. Act of Police Station A.C.E., Peshawar. Now he has applied to this Court for bail.
2. Arguments of Mr. Jamroz Khan, Advocate for accused petitioner and Mr. Saadat-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the State have been heard in the light of record.
3. According to the prosecution case, valuable land measuring 40 Marlas was allotted to Kashmir refugees who entered in to agreements to sell through their registered power of attorney holder Muhammad Bashir for Rs.80,00,000 out of which Rs.40,00,000 were paid in advance by the vendee. This transaction took place on the basis of P. T. D. No.890786. Subsequent thereto, the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed, who is not Kashmir refugee, arranged a fake P.T.D. No.325580 in his name and sold the same property to Hazrat Khan etc. for Rs.25,00,000.
4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner took the point that the co-accused namely Syed Gul Muhammad and Muhammad Bashir have since been released on bail by this Court vide order, dated 2-7-2007, the accused petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the principle of consistency. But I believe that the principle of consistency is not attracted in the case of accused petitioner for the pivotal role which he has played. In fact he is the beneficiary of the alleged fraud involving huge amount and valuable property. He has also a background of involvement in another similar case referred in the final report of the Investigating Officer, dated 16-7-2006 according to which he twice sold his own house on the basis of forged document and in this regard case F.I.R. No.2 dated 31-1-2006 of Police Station Anti-Corruption under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.C. Act is also pending against him.
5. The next point of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the offences are punishable up to seven years' imprisonment and the case is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. No doubt, this is a general rule, but subject to exception too. When there are allegations of repeated commission of the same offences, directly affecting the society, the person involved may lose his right of bail based on general principles. This is to safeguard the public from his C deceitful designs. In similar cases bail has been refused by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, as held in case Tanveer Ahmad Haral v. The State 2002 SCMR 1327 and Mehrban Ali v. The State and another 2004 SCMR 229.
7. With these views, since there is an established prima facie case, I do not want to exercise the discretion in favour of accused petitioner in enlarging him on bail. However, while parting with the order, it is directed that challan be immediately put in Court and the trial Court should fix the case for trial for earliest disposal on merits. H.B.T./41/P Bail refused.