Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TANVEER versus THE STATE

49 497 (2) en Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 381 A & 411 motor motor vehicle theft, receiving stolen property fraudulently - bail, grant - Further inquiry was alleged that he had motorcycle Was stolen, which happened later. Export from his home - No one witnessed the lifting of a motorcycle and no evidence of it was available on record \\\\ was Therefore, the section 381A, PPC entry in the strictness against the accused, was not disclosed. The question about air policing can be not only unjustified but even more so to ask is whether, under the weird circumstances of this case, the applicant has been charged against Section 381A, PPC or 411 PPC. Was the subject of litigation, which is a debatable question the trial court may consider appropriate the None of the two provisions of which the accused was charged. Was that under which he resides in the prohibited part of section 497 of 497, his refusal to bail to the accused would be highly blatant - according to him, [Page 735] A.

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733

Present: Dost Muhammad Khan,

Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ

MUHAMMAD TANVEER—Petitioner

versus

The STATE and another—Respondents

Criminal Petition No. 662 of 2017, decided on 22nd August, 2017.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 22.5.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Crl. Misc. No. 2593-B of 2017)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—s. 497(2)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381-A & 411—Theft of motor vehicle, dishonestly receiving stolen property—Bail, grant of— Further inquiry Accused was alleged to have stolen a motorbike, which was subsequently recovered from his house—No one had witnessed the lifting of the motorbike and no evidence to that effect was  vailable on record', therefore, the insertion of S. 381-A, P.P.C. in the harge against accused, appeared not only unjustified but also spoke bout mala fide of the police—Question as to whether in the peculiar ircumstances of the case, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted nder S. 381-A, P.P.C. or 411 P.P.C., was a debatable question to which the Trial Court could give due consideration—None of the two ffences with which accused was charged were punishable with mprisonment falling within the prohibitory limb of S. of 497, Cr.P.C. hus, refusal to grant bail to the accused would be highly unjustified— ccused was granted bail accordingly, [p. 735] A

b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 497—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Cases not falling ithin the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and practice in ibordinate courts of refusing bail in such cases on feeble grounds— upreme Court observed that such practice should come to an end  cause the public, particularly accused persons charged for such fences were unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and the ipreme Court was heavily taxed because hundreds of leave petitions led up in the Supreme Court and the diary of the Court was congested th such like petitions; that precious time of the Supreme Court was isted in disposal of such petitions; that the Supreme Court was purely constitutional court to deal with intricate questions of law and nstitution and to lay down guiding principles for the Courts of the intry where law points required -interpretation; that prisons were tommodating convicted and under-trial prisoners more than double ir capacity and State authorities were involved in transporting such soners from the prisons to the court premises on daily basis for court arings, which involved risks and extra expenditures from the public chequer; and that grant of bail in offences not falling within the ohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C. was a rule and refusal an ception, therefore all subordinate courts, special courts and tribunals ould follow said principle in its letter and spirit, [pp-735, 737] B & D

Mansha Khan v. The State 1977 SCMR 449; Tariq Bashir v. e State PLD 1995 SC 34; The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah 1992 'MR 2192 and Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of kistan PLD 2001 SC 607 ref.

c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

-S. 497—Bail—Discretion of court—Scope—Once the legislature d conferred discretion on the court to exercise jurisdiction in rticular category of offences without placing any prohibition on such discretion then, the court shall not import to such provision of law, reasons or factors alien thereto and not specifically mentioned in the statute, [p. 737] C

Ijaz Ahmad Toor, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, APG Punjab and Muhammad Ijaz, ASI for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd August, 2017.

immigration advocates contact from Lodhran lawyer