Case of further inquiry

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, damiyah, hashimah, munaqqilah, other hurts, rioting armed with deadly weapons and criminal conspiracy

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Cross version

Case of further inquiry

Accused persons were alleged to have caused injuries to complainant party whereas a cross case was also registered against complainant party

Held: Quintessence of further inquiry must have linkage with the outcome of the case for which a tentative estimation of material on record is to be mulled over

Case of further inquiry presupposes a tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to involvement of accused in the crime

Prosecution in order to make out a case for refusal of bail to an accused, is primarily supposed to place on record material on the basis of which he is believed to be involved in a non-bailable offence but in absence of such material Court for the purpose of releasing accused on bail, instead of dilating upon facts of case in detail can dispose of the matter by holding that his detention is unjustified or unreasonable

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage

Object of trial is to make an accused face trail not to punish an under trial prisoner

Challan had already been submitted in Trial Court and charge was to be framed

Petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed.

Complainant, who was the sole eye-witness, did not specify in her statement the distinct role played by each of the accused

Narration of complainant was general in nature, attributing no specific or individual role to accused as such making the case fit for further inquiry

Case of accused squarely fell within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling accused to concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry into his guilt

Bail was allowed.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 2 (za) & 9 [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]

Recovery of psychotropic substance

Bail, grant of

Case of further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Conscious knowledge

Tablets Rivotril (Clonazepam) were recovered from consignment of goods to be exported abroad

Accused contended that he was neither exporter, shipper, clearing agent nor financer of the shipment and he also did not have conscious knowledge of alleged recovered tablets / medicines

Validity

Exporter and directors of manufacturing company of drugs had been granted bail while clearing / forwarding agent was never arrested

Alleged recovery of psychotropic substance was recovered without videography or photography at the spot to show veracity of raid and role of accused

Role of accused required further proof regarding his involvement in illegal export

Rationale of setting the law into motion in criminal cases is to make an accused face the trial and not to punish him pre-trial or make him rot behind bars because every accused is innocent until proven guilty

Doctrine of "further inquiry" refers to a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding involvement of accused in the crime

Rule of consistency or doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that where incriminating and ascribed role to accused is the same as that of co-accused, then benefit extended to one accused should also be extended to co-accused according to the principle "like cases should be treated alike" after accurate evaluation and assessment of co-offender's role in commission of alleged offence

Case of accused was one of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed.

It was still to be determined at the trial as to whether accused had shared common intention with nominated co-accused in committing murder of deceased and causing firearm injuries to two others and he was vicariously liable for the occurrence

Challan had already been submitted but for the last 9 months the prosecution had not examined any witness at the trial

Accused was in judicial custody and was no more required for any further investigation or probe

Allegations levelled in FIR by complainant against accused were to be proved at trial and bail could not be withheld as mere punishment

Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Bail was allowed.

Such version of complainant was negated by Medico Legal Report as allegation of committing unnatural offence by accused could only be corroborated by medical evidence

Medico Legal Report was in direct conflict with the version of complainant and had reduced its veracity almost to a non-entity

DNA report in such respect was also negative

Benefit of doubt could be extended to accused even while deciding pre-arrest bail application

Investigation to the extent of accused was complete and there was no allegation of his misusing concession of ad interim bail already granted to him

Pre-arrest bail was allowed in circumstances.

Unauthorized access to information system or data, unauthorized copying or transmission of data, electronic forgery, electronic fraud, unauthorized use of identity information, cheating, forgery and abetment

Bail, grant of

Beneficiary of transaction

Proof

Case of further inquiry

Accused persons were involved in acts of electronic financial fraud and forgery, specifically in the unlawful acquisition of funds from both national and international bank accounts

It was to be determined after recording of evidence by Trial Court as to who utilized the accounts to perpetrate alleged offences

No conclusive evidence was gathered by investigating agency with regard to such aspect of prosecution case

Due to absence of sufficient material at bail stage to connect accused persons with offences alleged against them, the matter had become one of further inquiry into their guilt in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Though the investigating officer had tried to establish that the sim was used in the cell phone recovered at the instance of the petitioner but it was noted from record that no independent witness was joined in recovery proceedings of said cell phone

No other evidence was available on record

Hence, the evidentiary value of the said recovery as well as involvement of the petitioner in the instant case was to be adjudged by the Trial Court seized with the power after recording evidence

Moreover, the entire evidence, collected by the FIA authorities was based upon documentary evidence, which was already in the possession of the prosecution and there was no likelihood of tampering with the same by the accused/petitioner

Moreover, as per settled law the bail did not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds took responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever required to be produced

Even otherwise the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner carried maximum punishment of five years and three years respectively, hence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail was a rule and refusal was an exception

Petitioner had no previous criminal record

Petitioner was behind bars since his arrest

The investigation to the extent of present petitioner was completed and he was no more required to the police for further investigation as report under S.173 Cr.P.C. had been filed

No useful purpose could be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for indefinite period

Subject to furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court the petitioner was enlarged on bail

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Case of further inquiry presupposes tentative assessment of material brought on record starting from time of lodging of FIR and material collected during the course of investigation till the conclusion of investigation, which in turn creates some doubt with respect to involvement of accused in commission of crime

Expression "reasonable grounds" refers to ground that may be legally tenable is, admissible in evidence and appeals to a reasonable judicial mind, as opposed to whimsical, arbitrary, or presumptive

High Court upon tentative assessment of material available with prosecution was convinced that reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused had committed a non-bailable offence falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause as contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.

Overwhelming evidence was available on record to connect accused with the commission of alleged crime

Bail was declined, in circumstances.

Held, that prosecution failed to show from record that currency notes allegedly recovered, had any specification or special marks so that, prior to trial, recovery of unspecified cash could be considered as a reasonable ground as necessitated under S.497, Cr.P.C.

Allegation in FIR was that departmental selection committee, headed by accused had made some changes or committed forgery in the written test but no denial, based on plausible explanation, could be made by prosecution that result was announced by OTS (Open Testing Services) on the website much prior to the alleged date of forgery

There was delay of about two years in lodging the case which was unexplained by prosecution

Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt

Bail was allowed.

Nature and degree of substandard meat and relevant standard, which was to be maintained by accused as shopkeeper, was not described anywhere

Accused placed in his file a certificate issued by Punjab Food Authority valid from 01.12.2022 to 30.11.2023

Date of occurrence was 05.07.2023 which was within the period stated in the certificate

Police file did not reflect any complaint lodged by any private person against accused for selling substandard meat

Out of 2500 Kgs. meat less than half was considered as harmful but question was on what grounds, the police investigation required further input

Report/Certificate of Veterinary Officer was not enclosed in police file

Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused remained detained in judicial lockup for about two months

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching a just conclusion

Case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime.

Petitioners were arrested for misusing their authorities in allotment of state land and causing loss to government exchequer

Validity

Amount calculated in reference was Rs.3,607,200/- which was recovered with the approval of Senior Member Board of Revenue

Such communication was made by Secretary Land Utilization Department of Government of Sindh

Mutation entry in record of rights was incorporated, pursuant to the orders of Senior Member, Board of Revenue

Karachi Metropolitan Corporation allotted 2322 plots to private persons/industrialist and Board of Revenue granted 149 acres of land to individuals

Was yet to be determined during recording of evidence before Trial Court that land automatically stood resumed to Provincial Government or when payment was made and entries were kept in record of rights and payments were made along with fine

Government of Sindh was keen to resolve the issue and reference had already been filed

Accused persons were no more required for further inquiry

At bail stage only tentative assessment was to be made and deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible

Accused persons had made out their case of further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prima facie, there was no charge against the petitioners of converting any amenity area into commercial one and selling same for their own benefit either

Role of their being in connivance with other accused alleged against them could be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence

Case of petitioners, on tentative assessment of material by High Court appeared to be one of further inquiry and petitioners had made out a case for bail

Bail was granted, in circumstances.

Said company ran a scheme under which after opening a paint box, a token of certain amount would come out and on its return, the company would re-pay the amount to the holder of the token

Pursuant to an audit report, it was found that the accused instead of entering the tokens in the computer system sent them back for redemption in the market due to which a loss of about forty million rupees was caused to the company

Allegedly, the tokens amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- and a cash amount of Rs.200,000/- was recovered from the petitioner

Held, that unless and until the nexus between the amount recovered from the accused and loss occurred was established with exactitude especially when the contents of the crime report did not disclose the denomination/value and number of tokens utilized for causing loss to the company, the accused could not be held guilty and kept behind the bars

To substantiate the allegation, the prosecution had recorded the statements of three shopkeepers, however, mere statements of the shopkeepers prima facie did not seem sufficient to curtail the liberty of a person for an indefinite period especially when the co-accused of the accused from whom tokens of Rs.12,00,000/- were recovered had been granted bail by the High Court

Accused was also entitled for the same relief following the rule of consistency

Furthermore offence alleged called for further inquiry into guilt of accused, and it also did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was in jail for more than six months and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period till conclusion of a lengthy trial

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.

In absence of any property purchased or owned in personal name of accused and in absence of direct proof that his family members were his dependents or vice versa and in absence of direct proof that money came through Foreign Telegraphic Transfers in account of accused as some crime proceed or money laundering, such allegation could not be accepted as gospel truth

Difference of opinions between Judges of Division Bench of High Court, on bail matter showed existence of reasonable grounds to connect accused with crime as doubtful

Such difference of opinion entitled accused to benefit of doubt, which was a factor essential for grant of bail

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was alleged to have willfully damaged copies of the holy Quran by burying them and spilling water and stamping the place with feet

Validity

Freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate religion as a fundamental right has been recognized under Art. 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Such has a corresponding duty to respect thoughts and beliefs of other people

Scriptures and holy personages have central place in a religion and sect so those must also be respected

Holy Quran is heart and soul for the Muslims who demand same veneration for it from all and sundry

Mens rea was one of the essential elements to constitute an offence under S. 295-B, P.P.C.

Subject to certain conditions, Shariah recognized burial as one of the modes to dispose of old and unusable copies of the Quran

Accused was behind the bars for about 14 months and his trial was not likely to be concluded in foreseeable future

Continuous incarceration of accused would be like punishing him before conviction

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were arrested 2-1/2 years ago on the allegation of causing loss to national exchequer by misusing their authority during acquisition of land for government project

Validity

No prospect of early conclusion of trial and petitioners could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period

Investigation process was complete and physical custody of accused persons was no more required to National Accountability Bureau for further investigation

Trial Court required 1-1/2 years more for conclusion of trial subject to full cooperation of prosecution as well as accused persons

No incriminating material was recovered from petitioners, who joined investigation and were no more required for further investigation

Case against petitioners was one of further probe and inquiry into their guilt by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Ghayr-Jaifah Damihah, Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah, Ghayr-Jaifah Munaqqilah and rioting armed with deadly weapons

Bail, grant of

Cross version

Aggressor party

Determination

Principle of consistency

Injured accused

Case of further inquiry

Two out of five co-accused persons nominated in FIR were released on bail after arrest

Accused also got serious injuries and as per medical report one injury was lacerated wound skin to bone deep on vertex parietal region and kind of weapon used was blunt

Seven persons from complainant party were injured, Danddas and iron rods were recovered from accused belonging to complainant party

Five accused from complainant party were released on bail after arrest

Effect

Cause of death mentioned in postmortem report was severe head injury due to assault which caused severe damage to vital organ (brain) of the body but there was no allegation that accused had caused any head injury

Fatal injury was not attributed to accused

Question of aggression was still to be determined and Churri recovered at the instance of accused from kitchen of his house was not blood stained

Case of accused required further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was booked in a case under Ss.10 & 19 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act (V of 1985), with the allegation that he had abducted the victim and committed zina-bil-jabr with her

Record showed that complainant remained silent for a considerable time and lodged the FIR at a belated stage, for which no plausible explanation had been brought on the record

Although, in such like cases, delay was not always fatal for the prosecution, however, there must be some reasoning for not approaching the concerned investigation agency for initiating the legal proceedings

Record showed that originally the victim implicated the accused-petitioner and other co-accused, but while getting her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., she had changed her version and only implicated the accused-petitioner

Allegedly, victim got pregnant in the result of the occurrence but she never disclosed the fact for a long time for the reasons best known to her

Out of eight accused persons only the petitioner had been challaned, whereas the others had been discharged, which made the case one of further inquiry, as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was behind the bars for more than four months and was not required for further investigation

No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused-petitioner in jail for indefinite time, in circumstances

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Charas weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving seat of vehicle in which accused was sitting on front

Effect

When accused was arrested he was not driving the car nor any narcotics was recovered from his exclusive possession rather he was sitting on the front seat of the car

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were investigated and arrested on providing undue gratification and monetary misappropriation in parking contracts to companies

Plea raised by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was that some accused persons entered into plea bargain therefore, commission of offence was established against petitioners

Validity

High Court declined to appreciate plea of NAB at bail stage as prosecution had to independently prove case against petitioners and not by taking advantages of developments made subsequent to investigation

Prosecution was not able to dig out any transfer of funds or receiving kickbacks by petitioners for executing agreement with parking companies to extend them any favour with corresponding loss to exchequer

Constitution of offences under S. 9(a)(iii)(vi)(xii) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 needed further inquiry in circumstances

High Court allowed constitutional petitions of accused persons and bail was granted.

Petitioner was one of Directors in a Sugar Mill allegedly having received investment from abroad to launder ill-gotten money

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) arrested petitioner for receiving a sum of Rs.70,000,000/- in her account from account of said Sugar Mill

Validity

Petitioner had not actively participated, connived, abetted or aided to acquire assets disproportionate to known sources of income as no connection of petitioner was established with foreign nationals in order to persuade them to invest in Sugar Mill so as to attract provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Question of making layers and becoming beneficial also required further probe as investments in real estate in UAE was not out of some crime proceeds in form of ill-gotten money

Money which had come from UAE was not black money having origin from some crime proceeds of internationally recognized crimes like terrorism, etc.

Attracting foreign investment had always been a perennial demand of every government and all governments would dream of it but great hurdles were always faced by them to make it a reality

Bank statement of petitioner had shown withdrawal of Rs.70,000,000/- from account

High Court directed petitioner to deposit sum of Rs.70,000,000/- in High Court and passed a conditional bail granting order

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

No legal justification existed to commit accused to custody when he otherwise had made out a case for grant of bail because in such like cases bail had become rule and refusal would be an exception

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was ex-Provincial Minister who was arrested by National Accountability Bureau for misuse of his authority and causing loss to national exchequer

Plea raised by accused was that letter issued by Federal Government had established that payments made during regime of accused were not exorbitant

Validity

During reference period, rates which were paid by Provincial Government as authorized by petitioner to advertising agencies who then engaged concerned television channels, were much lower in each case than those which were being paid by Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, National History and Literary Heritage

Such fact raised issue whether rates charged by Provincial Government in reference were in fact exorbitant during reference period as per market rates, especially when Federal Government was paying much more

Letter of Federal Government revealed that there was no regularization or standardization of rates to be paid to advertising agencies during time when reference was filed or thereafter

Such new ground had made case of petitioner one of further inquiry in terms of rates paid by Provincial Government to advertising agencies in terms of their exorbitancy

Conclusion of trial was delayed and its completion was not in sight in foreseeable future

Trial had not reached position where such delay or period spent in custody of petitioner could be regarded as shocking, unconsciousable or inordinate

Such delay also tilted balance in favour of petitioner

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Complainant was not an eye-witness of the crime and his initial belief that accused in connivance with his former wife had murdered the children was structured upon a suspicion

Complainant recalled before Trial Court substantial portion of his allegation while exonerating his former wife identically placed and subsequently inducted another co-accused who allegedly participated in the crime and that co-accused was also on bail

Polygraph test, a modern forensic method to unearth truth could establish a person's capacity to lie, however, findings thereof, could not be equated with admission of guilt

Transposition of former wife as a witness with her failure to prosecute accused through private complaint constituted her departure from the scene and as such brought the case within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Statements of two prosecution witnesses recorded after an unexplained, inordinate delay also required evidential verification during trial

Horrors of a heinous crime could not impede release of accused on bail, if otherwise his guilt called for further probe nor bail could be withheld as a strategy for punishment

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was arrested by authorities who recovered 2 kilograms baked Charas from his possession while 3400 grams opium was recovered from rickshaw in which he was travelling

Recovery of two kilograms baked Charas from possession of accused and recovery of 3400 grams opium from rickshaw lacked independent corroboration

Prosecution was yet to prove conscious knowledge of accused about allegedly recovered opium

Case against accused fell within ambit of further inquiry and court while hearing an application of bail was not to keep in view maximum sentence provided by Statute but one which was likely to be entitled in facts and circumstances of case

Accused after facing investigation was already shifted to jail custody thus his further detention did not serve any useful purpose

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

No legal restriction existed on grant of bail to an accused due to his previous conviction for offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if his case is covered under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petitioners were Vice-Chancellor and other senior officials of the University of the Punjab, who were arrested for appointments made on contract basis during their tenure

Authorities alleged that petitioners misused their authority as appointments were made without approval of Selection Board

Validity

Vice-Chancellor was Chairman of the sub-committee along with the others Registrar/Secretary and exercised their authority delegated to it by the Syndicate in a bona fide manner for the purposes of appointment of teaching staff on contractual basis without any mens rea on their part

Petitioners did not misuse their authority to make illegal gains for themselves or for someone else by depriving any aggrieved person of his valuable vested right

Contract employment of many of the employees was regularized/extended and the employees had not given any opportunity of complaint to anyone against them with reference to performance of their job

Allegations of appointments on contractual basis by the committee while exercising authority of the Syndicate, without approval of Selection Board, made against petitioner being its members required further probe as contemplated under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. and further detention of petitioners would serve no useful purpose to prosecution

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was doctor by profession and was accused of charges under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for selling amenity plots causing loss to national exchequer

Validity

Statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of prosecution witness was not convincing and did not appeal to reason and was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence

Petitioner was a doctor by profession and was not an estate agent or broker so it was difficult to find as to how he could have managed sale/transfer of as many as 7 plots in manner mentioned in statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of said prosecution witness making case of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioners were accused of misuse of authority in allotment of land and sought pre-arrest bail on grounds of mala fide of National Accountability Bureau Authorities

Validity

Pre-arrest bail was an extraordinary relief and was only available in cases where there had been mala fide on part of complainant or investigating agency

Mala fides was often difficult to prove and could be inferred from facts and circumstances surrounding/concerning a particular case

Tinges of mala fide by National Accountability Bureau in including petitioners could exist in reference as both allotments were cancelled and there was no loss caused to the State and no benefit to any of the petitioners

High Court confirmed pre-arrest bail of petitioners as facts and circumstances made it a case of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioner was receiving cash from principal accused and placed same into his Bank accounts and subsequently layered same into other accounts

Principal accused at relevant time when he was Minister of Petroleum visited Karachi, met petitioner and handed over him cash, received through gratification/ illicit money for disguising

Petitioner used to deposit same into his own accounts then withdrew same intermittently for purchasing properties in Pakistan or abroad

Petitioner used to make payment through pay order or demand draft and then intimated principal accused through coded conversation after completion of transaction

Petitioner was front man and benamidar of principal accused

Details of bank accounts of petitioner and other material collected during investigation indicated abnormal transactions beyond his well-known source of income

Petitioner had not been able to make out a case for grant of relief including concession of bail

High Court rejected grant of bail to petitioner and recalled granting ad-interim pre-arrest bail

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

It was a case of pick and choose as investigating officer had not arraigned any official as accused who allotted amenity plots to principal accused in year 1994 or those who had restored allotment

More than 84 acres valuable lands at different parts of Karachi were allotted to principal accused by Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh but none from those who had allotted the valuable lands to principal accused had been arraigned as accused in the reference

Such action by authorities clearly manifested mala fide on part of prosecution

National Accountability Bureau levelled allegations against petitioner that he had put his note on the note sheet for entering into deed of lease with hospital of principal accused and same too was executed after approval of the competent authority for restoration of earlier allotments

High Court declared case of petitioner within purview of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner Chief Executive Officer of Karachi Dockyard Labour Board (Board) and was alleged to have awarded contract to the principal accused in violation of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004 and facilitated in taking over the hospital of the Board

Validity

Neither petitioner was competent to award contract to the principal accused nor he acted in violation of decision of the Board

Board was a body corporate and ran its affairs through Chairman

Neither Chairman nor members of the Board were examined during investigation

No illegality was pointed out by the Board nor did it show any displeasure against petitioner in entire minutes of meeting

Petitioner was a man of advance age and nothing had been brought on record to show that he had gained any benefit and no money trail was sorted out

Case of accused being that of pick and choose, same required further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were government officials who were alleged to have misused/failed to exercise their authority by illegal regularization of government lands causing loss to national exchequer

Court, in case of bail had to make a tentative assessment of material on record and could not go into deeper appreciation of the same

Trial Court was to decide cases on merits based on evidence before it

Prima facie, in the present case, it was difficult at bail stage based on material before High Court to link all petitioners to an unbroken chain of criminality especially after Lands Committee (none of whom were accused) gave clean chit to regularization of subject land

Slight elements/hints of mala fide existed and it had become a case of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was required to be served with a notice before registering case against him in order to make clear version of prosecution and allegations levelled against him

Object of bail was to secure appearance of accused person at his trial

Object of bail was neither punitive nor preventive therefore, deprivation of liberty was to be considered a punishment unless it could be required to ensure presence of accused during trial

Offence with which accused was charged was carrying different-cum-alternate punishments and lesser punishment which favored accused was to be considered at bail stage

Case against accused fell within ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. and required further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused persons was that judgment of Trial Court was prima facie result of misreading and non-reading of available material

Validity

Evidence/material was not appreciated properly while convicting accused persons and acquitting those who otherwise were found guilty in internal inquiry and were charged with main allegations in FIR

High Court suspended sentence as prima facie judgment of conviction opened room for further inquiry because Ss. 497 and 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous to each other

Bail was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was Secretary to Provincial Government and was alleged by National Accountability Bureau to have extended contract in violation of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010

Validity

Secretary was not supposed to personally check that the work in question had been carried out when he was assured by senior members of committee that said work had been done

Persons working under the Secretary (petitioner) and who he relied on, were senior officers whom he had no reason to doubt

Other officials were supposed to check that the work was satisfactorily completed, as it was they who had assured petitioner in meeting that work had been satisfactorily carried out

Role of petitioner as Secretary was not to micromanage the affairs

Case of petitioner was of further inquiry vis-à-vis his criminality and prima facie mala fide on part of investigating officer was found in respect of the petitioner

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

No explanation was given as to why police decided only to arrest accused (who was attorney through which land in question was sold) and did not arrest person to whom land was sold or principal of accused (who was stated to be owner/seller of land in question)

Police did not even consider it necessary to question the Sub-Registrar who registered sale deed in question

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Allegation against petitioners were that had they appointed 7 bogus teachers in District Quetta and in violation of procedure, activated salaries of alleged bogus teachers

One of the petitioners was retired on in March 2011 and during the period of alleged appointment he was out of country

Question related to another petitioner as to whether he at the relevant time was ex-Deputy District Officer Education, had DDO's power to initiate salaries of bogus teachers or as to whether official / officer of the office of Accountant General had acted in violation of any law, rule or regulation and bringing their case under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, were the exceptional circumstances, and the same were yet to be decided by Trial Court

Reference in question had already been submitted before Trial Court and petitioners were facing their trial

High Court had already confirmed bail before arrest of accused persons in another case on same allegations and petitioners had made out their case for bail

Bail before arrest was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioners being holders of public office were among the accused persons allegedly involved in bogus recruitments of teachers, however separate references were filed by the National Accountability Bureau against them

Petitioners contended that the complainant had filed separate references in order to pressurize and blackmail the accused persons

High Court had already granted bail to most of the accused persons in other references based on same allegations

Said references reflected identical allegations of bogus recruitments of teachers

Petitioners had filed application before the Trial Court for consolidation of all references being identical in nature, which application was yet to be decided by the Trial Court

Trial Court could determine whether or not, all the references pertained to the same period with regard to same allegations

Such determination would require evidence

National Accountability Bureau identified appointment of 125 teachers being bogus one, but instead of filing one reference against all accused persons, deliberately and intentionally, filed different references in piecemeal

Said act of National Accountability Bureau reflected mala fide on its part

Case of the petitioners was of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was allowed to the petitioners in circumstances.

Petitioner was Chief Executive Officer for a very limited period and had no power to operate Bank accounts, no power to sign cheques, no power to execute agreements, received no monies from the scam and to all intents and purposes was a dummy officer

Effect

Prima facie, there was insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the offence for which he had been charged

Case of petitioner was one of further inquiry and there were tinges of mala fide

Pre-arrest bail was allowed in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 1340 grams narcotic substance was recovered from the garage, where the accused persons were allegedly present

Recovery of narcotic substance did not exceed the limit between 900 to 1500 grams, the case being of borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, benefit of such situation was to be extended to the accused persons

Accused persons, in circumstances, were entitled for bail

Investigation had been completed and accused persons were no more required further to the police

Further detention would not serve any useful purpose and there was no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Accused persons were therefore, admitted to bail.

Petitioners were arrested by National Accountability Bureau on the allegation of corruption and corrupt practices in allotment of plots of housing scheme in question

Validity

Nothing solid was collected by National Accountability Bureau during investigation to show that allotments were done on the basis of favoritism, nepotism or against any monetary gain

Allotment was not done by petitioners, rather they were Members of Committee having only made recommendations

Nothing was on the record to show such recommendations to be based on any mala fide

Lease money was deposited by allottees directly in the account of housing society

Damage allegedly caused by petitioners to government exchequer was not determined till date

Case of petitioners was arguable for the purposes of bail

Investigation regarding petitioners was complete and they were no more required for further interrogation

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Abscondance of accused by itself was no ground for refusal of bail, if otherwise, case of accused was of further inquiry.

Accused was attributed a specific role of inflicting injury with iron rod on the right shoulder of deceased but nothing was recovered from him and he was declared innocent during investigation

Injury attributed to accused fell under S. 337-L(2), P.P.C. which offence was bailable

Accused was previous non-convict

Accused was behind bars since 29.01.2016 and there was no chance of early conclusion of trial

Bail was allowed.

Accused, as per record, had made fatal fire shots at the deceased but such ipse dixit of police was not binding on court of law

Heinousness of offence was no ground for refusal of bail

Accused was previous non-convict, investigation was complete and he was not required for the purpose of further investigation

Bail was allowed.

Accused was named in the case through a supplementary statement recorded after three months of occurrence wherein no source of information was mentioned

No identification parade was held in the case

Authenticity of recovery would be considered by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Accused was previous non-convict

Investigation was complete and accused was not required for further investigation

Mere involvement of accused in other cases without conviction was no ground for refusal of bail to him

Bail was allowed.

Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, criminal misconduct by public servant

Bail, grant of

Case of further inquiry

Complainant levelled allegation that accused persons had received bribery from him, for passing his bills

FIR did not disclose that currency notes were passed through the hands of accused

Amount itself was not to weigh against grant of bail to accused persons

Offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

No likelihood of abscondance of accused existed

Investigation had already been completed

Concession of bail could not be withheld by way of pre-mature punishment

Bail was allowed accordingly.

Offence (S. 337-F(vi), P.P.C.) attributed to accused (present petitioner) did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Medical evidence did not corroborate the story in FIR

Co-accused had already been granted bail before arrest

Accused was not a previous convict

Investigation of case was complete

Bail was allowed.