2022 PLP 366 (YLR)
QUTAB ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 366 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QUTAB ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 366 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 366 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 366 (YLR) (QUTAB ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Faizan Ali for Petitioner.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner; that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner is previously non-convict; that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that there is an inordinate delay of about 03-months in registration of the FIR.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 408 & 34
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38
Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant and common intention
Confession to police officer not to be proved
Scope
Accused sought post-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Ss. 408 & 34, P.P.C.
Investigation in the case was complete and there was no evidence against the accused except his own statement before the police
Offence with which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused had made out a case for further inquiry
Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.
S. 497
Scope
Where a case falls within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be denied in the exceptional circumstances.
S. 497
Scope
Ultimate conviction can repair the wrong caused by mistaken relief but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to the accused for his unjustified incarceration if he is acquitted ultimately.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No. 71/2019, dated 14.02.2019, offences under sections 408/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with co-accused i.e. Adil Bashir and Shaheen Haider have committed criminal breach of trust and embezzled an amount of Rs. 1218857/-, the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation he was sent to judicial lock up.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner; that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner is previously non-convict; that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that there is an inordinate delay of about 03-months in registration of the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant contends that the accused has committed an embezzlement of huge amount and the evidence is available against him. Petitioner/accused has returned an amount of Rs. 4,000,00/- (Four Hundred Thousand only) to the complainant and produced stamp paper, therefore, he is not entitled for bail after arrest.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that investigation in the case has been completed and there is no evidence against the petitioner/accused except his own statement before the police. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon "2020 SCMR 1258, 2020 SCMR 717, PLD 2017 SC 733, 2016 SCMR 1439 and 2011 SCMR 1708"; where it is held that where a case fell within non prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the concession of granting bail must be favorably considered and should only denied in the exceptional circumstances.
7. I do not find this to be a case where it should be refused as an exception. Ultimate conviction can repair the wrong caused by mistaken relief but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to the accused for his unjusti-fied incarceration if he is acquitted ultimately.
8. A tentative assessment of record shows that present petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry.
9. In view of above, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Hundred Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. Needless to mention that, this is a tentative assessment which shall not affect the trial of case in any manner. SA/11/Isl. Bail granted.