Habitual offender

2025 YLR 147 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-FDishonestly issuing a chequeBail, refusal ofHabitual offenderApprehension of abscondance

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he had dishonestly issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant to pay the liability of rent of a plot, which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned bank

From perusal of record it transpired that the accused/petitioner was involved in three criminal cases registered under S.489-F, P.P.C

Admittedly, accused/ petitioner had issued three cheques to complainants which on presentation before the concerned bank bounced due to insufficient amount in the account of the present petitioner/accused

No possibility of false implication of the petitioner or substitution or mistaken identity existed because he was known to the complainants

Accused/petitioner though was not convicted in any case previously, but his involvement in three cases of similar nature was sufficient to declare him habitual offender and apprehension existed that if he was released on bail, he could repeat the offence and there also existed apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail, as he belonged to another Province

Offence with which the petitioner/accused was charged, no doubt did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

But it was not rule of law that in each and every case which is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted to the accused without considering the gravity of the offence

Courts cannot be oblivious to the material collected by prosecution and after looking into it and making tentative assessment of evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out it can refuse bail even in cases which are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years

Bail petitions being devoid of merit were dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 103Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S. 18Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 5(5)Human trafficking and forging of documentsBail, refusal ofHabitual offenderPrevious convictRaid and searchOfficial witnessesAccused was arrested for human trafficking while preparing counterfeit documents

Plea raised by accused was that Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) raided house of accused without search and seizure warrant and no public witness was associated with the proceedings

Validity

Accused did not dispute FIA's jurisdiction over offences under Passports Act, 1974 and Emigration Ordinance, 1979

Raid conducted at around 3:30 a.m. was based on source information

No court was available at that time to which officials could have applied for a search warrant

Considering the urgency involved, any procedural irregularities or illegalities in the process should be condoned, especially when accused did not allege any malice on the part of officials

Accused could demonstrate during trial if actions caused him any prejudice

There was no violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C. while conducting the raid, as police witnesses were as good as any other witness from the general public unless they had any animosity towards the accused and had motive to implicate him falsely

Federal Investigation Agency team apprehended the accused on the spot with fake foreign passports, foreign driving licences, computers, printers, scanners and other machines, counterfeit stamps, visa stickers, monograms and other articles

Ingredients of offences under S. 18 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and S. 6 of Passports Act, 1974 were satisfied

Provision of S. 18 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was previously convicted in another case for same offence and was sentenced to imprisonment and fine, who had repeated the offence

Bail was refused, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJN 72 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 5Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Recovery of explosive substance, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtHabitual offenderScopeProsecution case was that one hand grenade with its pin was recovered from the possession of the accused

Allegedly, accused was involved in other criminal cases, as such, he was habitual offender and therefore, not entitled for any relief, however, mere saying that accused remained involved in criminal cases was not enough

Nothing on record to show that present accused was previously convicted in any such type of cases

Prosecution had failed to establish that the accused was ever convicted in any case registered against him, therefore, he could not be refused relief if otherwise under the law he became entitled for such relief

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 SCMR 1899 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document

Pre-arrest bail, refusal of

Habitual offender

Presenting fake sickness certificate before the court

Accused was involved in a case where a woman had been deprived of valuable money under the disguise of handing over a house against a consideration of Rs.500,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- as commission

Admittedly the accused was one of the signatory of the agreement document which reflected that he in connivance with other co-accused had managed to defraud a household lady

Accusation against the accused was otherwise found correct during the course of investigation and as such a definite finding of guilt had been given by the Investigating Officer against the accused

During the pendency of the second bail petition of the accused before the High Court, a certificate regarding his sickness was produced wherein it was specifically mentioned that he was suffering from COVID-19

However, the said certificate on inquiry was found to be bogus one

Furthermore accused was otherwise involved in three other cases of similar nature, which further lent support to the fact that the accused was prone to criminal activities

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused and accused was declined pre-arrest bail.

2021 YLR 468 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), Ss.9(d), 28, 2(e) & 59

Possession of narcotics, power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant, authorized officer, repeal and savings

Bail, refusal of

Habitual offender

Scope

Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 3330 grams of charas

Accused was arrested red-handed on the spot

Prosecution case was duly corroborated by the marginal witnesses present on the spot coupled with the positive report of Forensic Laboratory

Contention of petitioner was that at the time of registration of FIR, the local police was not authorised to search, seize or arrest a person under S. 28 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, rather the powers were vested in the "Authorised Officer"

No doubt, at the time of registration of FIR, local police was not empowered to search, seize and arrest under S.28 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019, but newly added subsection (3) of S.59 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019, provided that all actions done and proceedings conducted by local police from 4th September, 2019 till 31st January, 2020 were legal

Accused had also been charged in other criminal cases of similar nature which depicted that he was a habitual offender and dealt in narcotics business

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJN 29 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Habitual offenderPrinciple

Mere registration of criminal case(s) against accused is not sufficient to declare him as habitual offender unless it is proved that he had been convicted in any other said cases and that conviction has been upheld by the Superior Courts.

2018 YLRN 199 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.497Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)Possession of charas weighing 5255 gramsBail, refusal ofHabitual offender

Accused was apprehended while sitting on driver seat beneath which, from secret cavities, 5 packets of charas were recovered

Record showed that several other cases pertaining to recovery of narcotic substance were registered against the accused

Accused, in one of the said cases had been convicted

Accused was a habitual offender

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, in the present case, would further confirm the recovery of Charas

Accused had previous history and had also misused the concession of bail in other cases

Bail was refused, in the circumstances.

2018 YLR 1554 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-FDishonestly issuing chequeBail, refusal ofHabitual offender

Mere fact that the offence for which the accused was charged did not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. could not per se make him entitled to the concession of bail

Grant of bail in such like cases was not a rule of universal application as each case merited decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances

Record revealed that the accused was a habitual offender of committing such like offences and was involved in number of cases

Accused prima facie was linked with commission of offence thus was disentitled to the concession of bail

Bail was refused, in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 21 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 412Dacoity and receiving stolen articlesBail, grant ofStatutory delay in conclusion of trialDesperate and dangerous criminalHabitual offenderAccused was arrested for committing dacoity and recovery of official motorcycle

Plea raised by accused was that fourth proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. was not attracted unless accused has a previous conviction and there was delay in conclusion of trial

Validity

Exception vide fourth proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. was attracted

Nature of offence, recovery of official motorcycle, material collected by prosecution and alleged involvement of accused in ten other registered criminal cases was rightly made the basis by two Courts below for forming opinion that accused fell within the ambit of expression "desperate and dangerous criminal" and was not entitled to bail

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 1189 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 489-FCheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, dishonestly issuing a chequeBail, refusal ofHabitual offender

Prosecution case was that the accused petitioner in order to fulfil his financial obligation issued cheques of various amount and when these cheques were presented before the bank for encashment, they were dishonored

Accused petitioner had defrauded the complainants of huge amount by issuing bogus cheques while there was insufficient amount in his account

Chief Court observed that no doubt that normal business transaction should not be made base for criminal liability but the present case did not fall within the category of civil transaction

Act of accused petitioner involved mens rea regarding the alleged dishonest and fraudulent representation of facts

Accused petitioner had injured not only valuable rights of the families and had added severe mental and psychological torture into their miseries but also ruined their future

If such like criminals were allowed bail simply on the ground that offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., it would amount to granting premium to the offender

Admittedly, different alike FIRs were registered against the accused petitioner, which showed that accused petitioner was a habitual offender and was issuing bogus cheques to different people without realizing its consequences

Circumstances established that accused petitioner did not deserve any leniency

Bail was declined accordingly.

2016 MLD 451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-FDishonouring of chequeBail, refusal ofHabitual offenderAccused was arrested for issuing a cheque for a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- which was dishonoured on presenting to BankValidity

Accused was habitual money squeezer as per allegation and had repeated offence so was connected with commission of offence

Case of accused had come within the exceptions despite the fact the offence did not come under the prohibitory clause

Accused was not entitled for concession of bail and two courts below had rightly exercised their discretion by refusing relief of bail

Bail was refused in circumstances.

2015 PLD 165 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.9(a)(iv), 25(a) & 33-EConstitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionVoluntary Return (VR) agreementRemedy against violationHabitual offenderPetitioner was arrested for causing loss to government in procurement of wheatBefore authorization of investigation against him, petitioner entered into VR agreement but he violated the samePlea raised by accused was that recovery should be made under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967Validity

Enough time was given to petitioner to deposit VR amount but he failed to do so, thereafter, notice was given to him and finally a reference was filed

After VR agreement was signed voluntarily and without any duress, petitioner had no right or justification to question validity of reference or investigation conducted by National Accountability Bureau

Option to avail VR was valid till such time the reference was not filed and when the matter had become sub judice in Accountability Court, petitioner could not take the plea that recovery should have been made under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, instead of filing reference against petitioner

Petitioner concealed factum of existence of his VR agreement with National Accountability Bureau

Earlier also petitioner was dismissed from service on account of misappropriation of wheat amounting to Rs.23,95,575, then he was reinstated in service subject to payment of misappropriated amount in instalments

Petitioner was again suspended on account of shortage of 4661 wheat bags and he was issued show cause notice

Petitioner submitted his undertaking that he would credit Rs.30,00,000 and also signed VR with National Accountability Bureau for payment of missing wheat bags

Track record of petitioner was self-explanatory, therefore, High Court declined to grant bail to petitioner

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 259 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497(1), third provisoHabitual offenderProof

As long as an accused is not convicted, he would not attract the adjective of a 'habitual offender'.