2021 PLP 449 (SCMR)
KAMRAN ATTAULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 449 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam, Yahya Afridi and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | KAMRAN ATTAULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 449 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 449 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mushir Alam, Yahya Afridi and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 449 (SCMR) (KAMRAN ATTAULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners with Petitioners in person.
- Barrister Afzal Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant along with Complainant in person assisted by Arslan Binyamin, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 26.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Bail Application No.S-100/2020)
S. 498
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Financial scam
During the inquiry, incriminatory statements of various witnesses were forensically confirmed from the computer Call Details Record (CDR) and ledgers secured from the custody of a co-accused, who was a front man in the transaction
On the basis of such comprehensive probe the accused persons were being prosecuted for the present offence
Accused persons were admittedly at the helm of affairs and thus took the (important) decisions
Various pieces of evidence including forensic data, beyond susceptibility of human interference, unmistakably suggested a conduct by accused persons which was perfidious to the call of their duty
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and anticipatory bail was refused.
S. 498
Accused in a criminal case could not be granted anticipatory bail to subvert or undermine investigative procedure/process that essentially included arrest in order to bring the statutory exercise to its logical end for effective and meaningful prosecution of the offence through collection of information/evidence consequent upon arrest
Mala fide, manifestly intriguing upon the intended arrest, was the only justification to suspend or divert the usual course of law, a step which was most extraordinary by all means. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan, Qaiser Masood, Additional Director (Law) FIA, Khalid Naseem, Inspector, FIA Karachi and Shabbir Chandio, Inspector FIA Karachi for the State. Barrister Afzal Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant along with Complainant in person assisted by Arslan Binyamin, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Declined both by the learned Special Judge Central-I Karachi as well as a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Sindh, petitioners, Deputy and Assistant Directors in the Federal Investigation Agency, respectively, seek leave of the Court for bail in anticipation to their arrest in a case registered with F.I.A./ACC Karachi; they are accused to have received gratification to the tune of rupees 24 millions from one Sheikh Muhammad Munawar, arrayed as accused in a financial scam to subtly defraud Utility Stores Corporation to effect a massive sale transaction through a fake ISO certification. During the inquiry, incriminatory statements of various witnesses were forensically confirmed from the computer CDR and ledgers secured from the custody of co-accused Abdul Qadir Memon, a front man in the transaction; it was on the basis of this comprehensive probe that the petitioners braced the impending prosecution.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. A detailed parallel story related by the petitioners notwithstanding, nonetheless, they were admittedly at the helm of affairs to call the shot and thus in a position to rescue the complainant from the troubled situation he was trapped; various pieces of evidence including forensic data, beyond susceptibility of human interference, unmistakably suggest a conduct perfidious to the call of their duty hence, prima facie, cognizable. It is by now well settled that the accused in a criminal case cannot be granted anticipatory bail to subvert or undermine investigative procedure/process that essentially include arrest in order to bring the statutory exercise to its logical end for effective and meaningful prosecution of the offence through collection of information/evidence consequent upon arrest. Mala fide, manifestly intriguing upon the intended arrest, is the only justification to suspend or divert the usual course of law, a step most extraordinary by all means; it is not a case in hand. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/K-2/SC Bail refused.