Conviction in other cases

2015 PCrLJ 224 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 75Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-ACriminal breach of trustBail, grant ofPrinciplesFurther inquiryRegistration of other F.I.Rs.Conviction in other casesEffectHabitual offenderDetermination ofAlleged offence not falling under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Where offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule and could only be declined in exceptional cases, namely, where accused was likely to abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence, repeat the offence if released and/or where accused was a previous convict

F.I.R. was registered by delay of 3 months

Story narrated in F.I.R. did not constitute alleged offence

Whether the alleged breach constituted offence would be determined by Trial Court

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Investigation had been completed

Further custody of accused would serve no beneficial purpose

Amount involved in the case would not influence the grant of bail as offences in Penal Code were of criminal nature, proceedings related to such offences could not be treated as recovery proceedings

Presumption of innocence was basic pillar of criminal law

Every person had to be presumed innocent until proved guilty

Presumption of innocence was basis of right to defence of an accused and key to fair trial

Under Art.10-A of the Constitution right to fair trial was a fundamental right

Fair trial and due process essentially envisaged being free from bias of every kind

Person facing trial in multiple F.I.Rs. had independent right to defend himself in each case

Registration of other cases would not influence/bias court as such bias would deprive accused of his right to fair trial

Justice should not only be done but also should be seen to have been done

Conviction in other case would only be relevant for specific purpose of enhancement of punishment under S.75, P.P.C.

Mere factum of registration of cases was not sufficient to form opinion that accused was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal in terms of fourth proviso to subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Mere registration of a case by itself was not sufficient to declare an accused habitual offender unless accused had been convicted of any of such offences

Court could not allow itself to be prejudiced or influenced by registration of another case/multiple cases or even conviction as any such influence would deny accused the right to fair trial and due process

Discretion to grant bail could not be exercised in arbitrary, fanciful or perverse manner

Where accused had made out a case for grant of bail on reasonable grounds, refusal of bail on ground of conviction in some other case would give rise to factor of bias which would deprive accused of the right to defence, due process and fair trial

Bias resulting from conviction in another case would lead to an absurd situation wherein conviction in one case would be deemed conviction in every case, resultantly, accused will not be able to get bail in other cases and would remain incarcerated without trial

Accused was admitted to bail.