2017 PLP 694 (YLR)
Syed KAMAL SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 694 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Ikramullah Khan, J |
| Parties | Syed KAMAL 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 2017 PLP 694 (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 2017 PLP 694 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: Ikramullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 694 (YLR) (Syed KAMAL SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohi-ud-Din for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Accused issued cheque, which was dishonored by the Bank, which prima facie had established that accused had committed offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C.
Accused had not only been nominated in the FIR for commission of offence
Bail was refused, in circumstances.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Dishonouring cheque, prima facie had established that accused had committed offence under S.489-F, P.P.C.
Offence though did not fall in the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. but the circumstances of the case showed gravity of the matter, which not only affected an individual but also spoiled his economic and social life
Bail was refused. Abdul Sattar v. The State 2011 YLR 863 rel.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Likelihood of absconsion, apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence by accused, danger of repetition of offence existed
Accused was previous convict and hardened criminal
Bail was refused in circumstances. Subhan Khan v. The State 2002 SCMR 1997 rel. Raja Muhammad Zubair, Assistant A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.
Through this single order, I intend to dispose of this and the connected Cr.Misc.No. 653-A/2016 titled "Syed Kamal Shah v. The State and another" as in both these petitions though FIRs are different but section of law is one and the same.
2. The petitioner has moved this and the connected bail before arrest application for his pre-arrest bail in cases FIR No. 149 dated 20.06.2016 and FIR No. 686 dated 08.06.2016, both under Section 489-F, P.P.C. by Police Station City Mansehra, and this court vide orders dated 24.08.2016 had granted him ad-interim pre-arrest bail in both the cases. 2A. Perusal of the record would reveal that not only the accused-petitioner has directly been nominated in the FIRs but the offence relates to financial crime which is rampant in the society and public is loosing their trust with hard earned money. 3 Not only because the accused-petitioner had directly been nominated in the FIRs for commission of the offence but, also keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Lahore High Court in the case of "Abdul Sattar v. The State" reported as 2011 YLR 863 where it has been held that although the offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. where grant of bail is a rule and rejection thereof is an exception but the accused-petitioner does not deserve lenient treatment.
4. Moreover, if the people are simply allowed concession, such as bail, on the mere ground of absence of prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. while the circumstances show the gravity of the matter not only for an individual but also spoiling the economic and social life of his whole family, this may tend to perpetuate the commission of offences of the same nature. The grant of bail being a discretionary concession would, of course, not be warranted in such situation.
5. While considering the principle of law enunciated by the apex court in the case of "Subhan Khan v. The State" 2002 SCMR 1997 where it has been held that "where extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances, palpable on record, when there was likelihood of absconsion, apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence by accused, danger of repetition of the offence if the accused is enlarged on bail and where the accused was a previous convict, hardened criminal then, bail shall not be granted", therefore, I see no merits in this and the connected bail before arrest applications, which are hereby dismissed and the previous orders of this court dated 24.08.2016 are hereby recalled. JK/333/P Bail refused.