Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.514-B of 2014, decided on 9th September, 2014.

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 75---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Criminal breach of trust---Bail, grant of---Principles---Further inquiry---Registration of other F.I.Rs.---Conviction in other cases---Effect---Habitual offender---Determination of---Alleged 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 accu